Most disliked mac

[macEfan]

What is your least favorite mac apple made?

Mine: Powerbook 150.

[TheMonarch]

Powermac g3. expensive. ugly. slow...
Powermac g4, a little better. still somewhat ugly.
G5. Beautiful...

[~loserman~]

The Xserve they will release with Intel inside

[CanadaRAM]

PowerMac 4400.

Beige G3's? C'mon, they were great for the day. I still use one as an office machine and a testbed.

[mad jew]

Well, I love pretty much all Macs, but I suppose the G3 Clamshell iBooks were the ugliest. Although, some of those mid-90s beige things were pretty horrible. Still much better than the competition though. :p

[DeSnousa]

The new iMac's, don't get me wrong there great looking computers in which im considering purchasing, however i loved the G4 models.

That iMac G4 commerical is classic :D

[dornoforpyros]

The new iMac's, don't get me wrong there great looking computers in which im considering purchasing, however i loved the G4 models.

That iMac G4 commerical is classic :D

Agreed! I was set to buy a 20" g4 iMac and then they went and released those horrible g5! I wouldn't let one of those in my home!...ok that's a bit dramatic but you get the point :p

[mad jew]

I thought the same about the G5 iMacs when they first came out but I went and bought one a few months ago anyway because I needed (a little more desire-based than need-based :p ) a fast desktop. You learn to forgive them.

[Xephian]

G3 iMacs, G3 Color iBooks, and eMacs.

[RacerX]

I'm not a fan of the 800/840/8100/8500 case design. It is one of the worse cases to have to service.

I also don't much like the design (from a service point of view) of any of the iBooks. There was no (good) reason to make them that hard to service other than to keep people from upgrading.

I also thought the Classic II was a really poor replacement for the SE/30. The SE/30 was a great system that had the ability to be expanded well beyond it's default configuration.

By comparison, the Classic II was crippled. Ultra low RAM ceiling (10 MB), FPU was not standard, 16 bit data path rather than 32 bit (which made them much slower than the SE/30 even though both systems were running 68030 processors at 16 MHz), and no processor direct slot (or expansion slots of any type for that matter).

At any rate, those were my choices.

[California]

eMac and colored clamshell iBooks. I don't know why about the clamshells, I actually think they were okay as machines but the design was soooo 90's or something.

[mduser63]

I'd have to go with mid-90s beige designs. The original iMac started a very good change in design for Apple. They had some good designs before that (original Mac, TAM, etc), but they had more really generic ugly computers.

[After G]

I never really saw a Mac I hated. All the Macs that were crappy were made during the time I moved away from Macs. At least it would seem that way.

[chaos86]

powermac g5
i still maintain that its a bulletholed ugly monolith. it just seems like they found a huge supply of sheet metal and cut out templates for a pc, added handles (at the wrong angle!!!!) and covered it in holes to fix a heat problem.

imac g5
im with the others here-- i dont hate it, but i love the g4. i still play with the screen height and angle every time i go to my grandmas house out of sheer nostalgia.

[robbieduncan]

How can no-one have mentioned the Flower-Power and Dalmation iMacs. Really nasty (http://www.apple-history.com/?page=gallery&model=imac_cdrw)

[caveman_uk]

powermac g5
i still maintain that its a bulletholed ugly monolith. it just seems like they found a huge supply of sheet metal and cut out templates for a pc, added handles (at the wrong angle!!!!) and covered it in holes to fix a heat problem.

I much prefer the look of the MDDs - and that's not just because I have one. The G5s maybe quieter, cooler and better designed internally but do they really have to be that big?

[callan]

I dislike my eMac every time I have to move the damn thing! Whats in it? Concrete?!?!? :)

[chaosbunny]

Hm, I don't hate them, but from the look I don't like the black G3 powerbooks. They had nice details but in general looked very pc style. I sure hope they don't use black again with the mactels. Silver or white is far more elegant and different from other laptops. Don't know, black metal could look nice, but plack plastic, ugh.

[Jay42]

I dislike my eMac every time I have to move the damn thing! Whats in it? Concrete?!?!? :)

I know what you mean, but I don't think it was designed with portability in mind (despite the handle).

[callan]

I know what you mean, but I don't think it was designed with portability in mind (despite the handle).

Some portability would be nice though! I like the fact that if my flat were robbed they'd probably leave it behind. Who's gonna run down the street with one of those babies!! :D

[Sun Baked]

Probably the LPX-40, since it was the first Mac I saw specs on to have all the PC stuff on it.

Basically a PowerMac 6400 with all the PC I/O (PS2 keyboard and mouse, PC MFM floppy, ATA CDROM instead of SCSI, etc), EDO memory, and shaped to fit in a PC case.

Shades of a recent announcement. :eek:

[HiRez]

Gotta be the PowerMac 4400 (http://www.lowendmac.com/ppc/4400.shtml). Ugh. A case not even a mother could love. I've seen worse PCs, but for Apple this is about the low point IMO. Sure, you might consider the weirdo iMac colors garish, but I can see how some 14-year-old girl would want flowers on her computer. I think the cheap and boring cases of the 90s are worse.

http://www.lowendmac.com/ppc/4400.gif

[alex_ant]

iMac G5. Uninspired, boring slab that looks like it took 2 minutes to think up. The Jurassic Park 2 to the iMac G4's Jurassic Park.

[WeeShoo]

iMac G3, and the Old ''All-In-One G3's. Both are very very ugly, are a bit on the slow side, and take up a hell of alot of space.

[.:*Robot Boy*:.]

I personally dislike the black keyboard on the TiBooks, but I guess they'd look much better to me if the world was devoid of AlBooks. :p ;)

[.:*Robot Boy*:.]

The Jurassic Park 2 to the iMac G4's Jurassic Park.

Oooh, that's one hell of a burn! :D

[joecool85]

What is it with you guys bashing the beige g3s? I love those things. CRAZY easy to up the ram etc, everything is right there when you slide the case off. Whatever. I guess my least favorite would be the iMac G3. My most favorite as far as form factor goes, LC II.

**edit**
But what do I know, I like the G5 Power Mac "I'm a cheese grater crossed with a refrigerator" look.

[stridey]

The faulty logic board iBooks. Grr.... logic board failure.

[SpaceMagic]

The faulty logic board iBooks. Grr.... logic board failure.

Couldn't agree more.

[Eluon]

I don't know what some are talking about by saying the iMac G5 is ugly. I bought one and I absolutely love its looks. I think it is a master piece. If you open it up, you can see a very well designed system. Everyone that sees my computer thinks it is awesome looking.

I do agree though, that I like the flexibility of the iMac G4. I never owned one but I thought they were cool.

I owned an iMac G3 and it still turned heads until I threw it out ot the trash a month ago. Very stable and dependable computer. Got me through my first 2 years of college. (bought off ebay for 100 bucks).

Good thread.

[aquajet]

Performa 5200, an incredibly slow piece of garbage, PowerBook 5300 sucks pretty hard too

[VicMacs]

the emac for me... it was a step backwards... why go 17inch and be THAT BIG? I understand it being cheap and all but... it's not affordable once you ship it out of the US. Too expensive to ship out due to its weight. its like 60 pounds without the box! at 3 dollars the pound I pay.... man thats a lot of dollars.

They should have just put a g4 processor in the imac g3 enclosure, would have sold like hotcakes, and a little 15 flatscreen CRT, up the ram and the hd and the burner, make it color customizable (sage? flower power? dalmatian???? pleeeease they had better fired the guy who was high on crack when he thought of that) and make it 700 bucks............ would have blown the mac mini away 3 years ahead of time.

[topicolo]

I'm not a fan of the 800/840/8100/8500 case design. It is one of the worse cases to have to service.

I also don't much like the design (from a service point of view) of any of the iBooks. There was no (good) reason to make them that hard to service other than to keep people from upgrading.

I also thought the Classic II was a really poor replacement for the SE/30. The SE/30 was a great system that had the ability to be expanded well beyond it's default configuration.

By comparison, the Classic II was crippled. Ultra low RAM ceiling (10 MB), FPU was not standard, 16 bit data path rather than 32 bit (which made them much slower than the SE/30 even though both systems were running 68030 processors at 16 MHz), and no processor direct slot (or expansion slots of any type for that matter).

At any rate, those were my choices.

If you thought the Classic II was bad, you would've hated my LC II. It came out a full year after the Classic II but had the exact same processor, exact same crippled ram limit and 16 bit data path. The only difference was the presence of color, although the standard 256k of video ram was only good enough to drive 16 colors at 640x480 resolution. It was pathetic and I was stuck with it for 7 years :eek:

[Lord Blackadder]

Everyone has their own opinion...

To me the "most disliked Mac" is the Performa 5200. A friend of mine had one and it just sucked...Apple deliberately cobbled the thing together and cut lots of corners to to save money.

In my opinion Apple has pretty much never made an ugly computer...the closest they've ever got might be the somewhat ungainly large Mac II/IIfx cases, but in their day they were clean compared to other PCs. Even the G5 tower has a good look, though it's more "techy" beautiful than arty beautiful. Just an opinion.

The best looking Macs: all G4 towers, the Cube, and the TAM (Twentieth Anniversary Mac).

[Church]

The best looking Macs: all G4 towers, the Cube, and the TAM (Twentieth Anniversary Mac).

I don't agree with the last part, the TAM is OOGLAY! It's almost like they tried too hard to make it look good. ;)

[jayscheuerle]

I made mine worse by painting it with some type of granite speckle paint... uggah...

[jayscheuerle]

I don't agree with the last part, the TAM is OOGLAY! It's almost like they tried too hard to make it look good. ;)

It came out in '97 for $7,499 when the Mac was 13 years old..

Should have been called a 20th Anniversary Apple.

[Blue Velvet]

Do any of the clones count? I used to have one... :o

Can't remember what it was now... something 'Rome'.
It had a floppy drive, yeah!

[Lord Blackadder]

I made mine worse by painting it with some type of granite speckle paint... uggah...

Oh, it's on now: I'm gonna chop you up into a Philly steak sandwich for ripping on my beloved pizza-box. ;) :D

[cube]

Mactels

[Xeem]

Everyone has their own opinion...

To me the "most disliked Mac" is the Performa 5200. A friend of mine had one and it just sucked...Apple deliberately cobbled the thing together and cut lots of corners to to save money.

I hate Performas.
The Performa 630 (CD) was my least favorite Mac. Not only did it run way slower than the Quadra 660AV my dad replaced it with, but it died completely out of the blue (still under warranty though). When you are ten years old, powering up the family computer and seeing the dead Apple face is scary. And I'm not talking the sad face; I mean the x's for eyes weird things all over the screen face. The Performa 6300 that we got to replace the 630 also died under warranty, so we got a PowerMac 6500 after bringing the old Quadra back for a while.

[jeremy.king]

Performa 6400...

I bit because of the built-in-subwoofer...Basically anything based on the 603 ppc sucked a$$.

http://www.forbidden-planet.org/About/Images/ComputerHistory/performa6400.gif

[Lord Blackadder]

Performa 6400...

I bit because of the built-in-subwoofer...Basically anything based on the 603 ppc sucked a$$.

Too bad too, because the subsequent (and generally excellent) 603e-based Macs got an undeserved bad rap that carried over from the 603.

[biohazard6969]

How can no-one have mentioned the Flower-Power and Dalmation iMacs. Really nasty (http://www.apple-history.com/?page=gallery&model=imac_cdrw)

hey man, my imac's are flower-power'd and i wouldn't have it anmy other way!!! i like it a lot better than the solid colours, although i liked the imac g3's that were sorta see-thru

on that note, i'd like to say that the big boxy shape of the imac g3's was great for its time, but to have it carry on with the emac? thats just absurd, and that makes the emac the UGLIEST mac ever.

end story

[velocityg4]

The iMac G3, G4, G5 because it really helped set the standard for apple that consumer desktops don't need to have upgradeable video.
What happened to the days of a range of Powermacs. I just want a G5 tower or desktop with an AGP slot no PCI slots one processor and two ram slots, remember the 6100. So that I can have a cheap G5 that allows me to throw a 6800 in it.
This low upgradeability has finally culminated in the Powermacs by no longer allowing for aftermarket processor upgrades. :mad:

[jeremy.king]

Too bad too, because the subsequent (and generally excellent) 603e-based Macs got an undeserved bad rap that carried over from the 603.

I do believe it was a 603e in the performa 6400 line and it was quite the disappointment for me. Problem was it couldn't even come close to the performance of the 604e powermacs (and clones) of the day and upgradability was non-existent. L2 cache slot CPU upgrade anyone?

[dornoforpyros]

I don't know what some are talking about by saying the iMac G5 is ugly. I bought one and I absolutely love its looks. I think it is a master piece. If you open it up, you can see a very well designed system. Everyone that sees my computer thinks it is awesome looking.

Because the iMac G5 is something that really anyone could have designed. It just doesn't scream apple's "think different" slogan as much as the the g4 predecessor.

Ohh I think I'll take an LCD panel and mount a computer behind it. It looks like a pizza box!

[stridey]

Because the iMac G5 is something that really anyone could have designed. It just doesn't scream apple's "think different" slogan as much as the the g4 predecessor.

Ohh I think I'll take an LCD panel and mount a computer behind it. It looks like a pizza box!

They put a G5 in that thing! It's an incredible feat of engineering: an entire computer roughly the size and shape of a regular LCD moniter. But to each their own. :D

[Lord Blackadder]

I do believe it was a 603e in the performa 6400 line and it was quite the disappointment for me. Problem was it couldn't even come close to the performance of the 604e powermacs (and clones) of the day and upgradability was non-existent. L2 cache slot CPU upgrade anyone?

Whoops, you're right. IIRC the 603 series was much more energy efficient than the 604 series, but had lower performance. I remember drooling over the Power Mac 6500 when it came out, only to hear a lot of complaints about quirky problems plaguing the type (Ahem, Software Geoport modem...). Then my drooling needs were answered by Daystar's awesome Genesis MP+ dual/quad-CPU clone towers. I still think those are sweet...

[jc27]

Worst Macs: Flower Power and Blue Dalmatian iMacs. TAM. Powermac G3 B&W and AIO (cough, molar, cough cough.) And (do monitors count?) the 15" LCD Display in Bondi Blue.

Best Macs: iMac G3 Graphite (I know, I'm prejudiced.) 20" iMac G4. PowerBook 17". PowerMac G4 Cube.

On the whole iMac debate, I find the 17 to be pretty ugly from the front, due to the large slab of white. It's less noticeable on the 20", but still not the prettiest apple in the bunch.

[g5_11]

Mine would have to be the Performa 5200 Cd. Can't remember any good times I had with it.

[steven_t]

What a dungheap. Poor in every way:


power
expense
reliability


and all for £1800 at the time

:(

st

[eva01]

My faulty logic board iBook is my most ugliest :P just because it crapped out on me way too much

for some reason i love the G5 PM look, i think its that HUGE apple on the side ^^ i am proud to be an apple user so i let it be known

[mad jew]

Because the iMac G5 is something that really anyone could have designed. It just doesn't scream apple's "think different" slogan as much as the the g4 predecessor.

Ohh I think I'll take an LCD panel and mount a computer behind it. It looks like a pizza box!


But the iMac really is very different in the flesh IMO. My uncle came over to mine the other day and we were working on a family Powerpoint (don't ask...) and I actually switched him without trying simply because he loved the "it's just a screen" mentality. I see why everyone says it isn't "Apple" enough to be an iMac but I still think their biggest problem is the injustice photographs give them.

[dornoforpyros]

But the iMac really is very different in the flesh IMO. My uncle came over to mine the other day and we were working on a family Powerpoint (don't ask...) and I actually switched him without trying simply because he loved the "it's just a screen" mentality. I see why everyone says it isn't "Apple" enough to be an iMac but I still think their biggest problem is the injustice photographs give them.



Actually I find them even WORSE in person! When I first saw pics I was like "oh that's kinda neat" then I stood in front of one in a store and I was like "ewwww"

[ohcrap]

Actually I find them even WORSE in person! When I first saw pics I was like "oh that's kinda neat" then I stood in front of one in a store and I was like "ewwww"
They are ugly, yes, but I like to think that Mac users are not so superficial that they can't look past that to see the product for what it really is. Besides, as ugly as it is, it looks much nicer than most PC's. :D

[zap2]

my iMac G5, its also my best mac cuz its the only Mac i have ever had

i like it way more then any PC i have had

[geese]

Leave the eMac alone. I'll deck anyone who disses my eMac. :mad:

[macEfan]

I also dont like the PM 6100/7100/8100. They have way to many video problems. :mad:

[mad jew]

Actually I find them even WORSE in person! When I first saw pics I was like "oh that's kinda neat" then I stood in front of one in a store and I was like "ewwww"


Okay, fair enough. :)

[conditionals]

Personally, the emac design is one of my favourites. My friend has one and it's what made me buy a mac (albeit a powerbookG4). It's so rounded, functional and white. Plus, the CRT is amazing.

I think the powerbook g3 obviously takes the prize for making you want to gouge your eyes out with a baby's feeding spoon.
http://www.powerbookguy.com/pictures/pismo2000.jpg

[ohcrap]

I think the powerbook g3 obviously takes the prize for making you want to gouge your eyes out with a baby's feeding spoon.
Looks just like my sister's Inspiron.. :eek:

[yippy]

The 6400/6500 series computers or anything based on that same case. If you have EVER tried to work on the inside of those things you would understand how much of an access nightmare they are.

[sambo.]

Well, I love pretty much all Macs, but I suppose the G3 Clamshell iBooks were the ugliest. Although, some of those mid-90s beige things were pretty horrible. Still much better than the competition though. :p

yuh, the make-up case G3 iBooks were "different", but man were they TOUGH.

:mad: i prolly hate the Lisa most. bastard thing cost me a mint (AUD$8,000+ at the time :mad: :eek: :mad: ) and was superceeded by the Mac OS so quickly.

ARRRRGH.

[sambo.]

Hm, I don't hate them, but from the look I don't like the black G3 powerbooks. They had nice details but in general looked very pc style. I sure hope they don't use black again with the mactels. Silver or white is far more elegant and different from other laptops. Don't know, black metal could look nice, but plack plastic, ugh.

dude, compared to the PC laptops of the time, the G3 PB's were the sexiest things around.

i felt like "king ****" for years after i bought mine. not only would i have three pix on the wire by the time my PC using compadre's had scanned their first negative, but it crashed so much less and looked soooo much better....

just my $0.02 :eek:

[VanNess]

I always thought just about every Mac from the original iMac to today looked great. Sure beats the corporate beige cookie cutter rectangles that preceded them.

But to be fair, when it come to obnoxious form factors, Apple boxes just can't hold a candle to some of the designer, err...flair that some PC boxes have. I know these are very fast computers, but my god are they ugly:

[HiRez]

I think the powerbook g3 obviously takes the prize for making you want to gouge your eyes out with a baby's feeding spoon.
http://www.powerbookguy.com/pictures/pismo2000.jpg
Wow, I thought the Pismo looked fantastic. It was curvy and sexy and I like to think of it as an "Italian" design to the Titanium's more angular, minimalist, "German" look. The Pismo's button was also much more comfortable and tactile than the Ti/AlBooks...important if you're using it for hours every day. I still miss my Pismo, especially the dual batteries. I would rank it second on my list of all-time greatest PowerBooks after the 2400c.

[Xeem]

I agree with HiRez, the Pismo looks beautiful. In fact, it's my very favorite Mac from an appearance standpoint.

[RacerX]

...and 16 bit data path.The thing that made the data path issues so maddening was that Apple seemed to make some of the most odd choices.

For example, the IIvx was the replacement for the IIci and was actually slower even though it had a faster processor (the IIvx had a 68030 at 32 MHz while the IIci was at 25 MHz). Why? Because for some odd reason Apple had the data path set to half the clock rate of the processor (16 MHz). In the IIci, the data path was at 25 MHz.

And the PowerBook 500 series... While the data path was at the same rate as the processor, it was 16 bit. Why? Couldn't be because it was a PowerBook, because the 68LC040 based Duos use 32 bit data paths at the same rate as their processors. Which is why the 280c is faster than the 540c even though both are using the 68LC040 processor at 33 MHz.


And as long as I have started down the ranting path... why make the 68LC040 processors at all?

They are exactly the same as the 68040, but Motorola took the extra step of turning off the built in FPU.

Now I can (sort of) understand doing it in the PowerBooks (to cut down on heat)... but Apple used these things in desktops. And wouldn't taking the extra step of turning off the FPU (physically) make the 68LC040 more expensive?

Apple made some odd hardware choices in the early 90s, that is for sure.

[andy89]

the emac for me... it was a step backwards... why go 17inch and be THAT BIG? I understand it being cheap and all but... it's not affordable once you ship it out of the US. Too expensive to ship out due to its weight. its like 60 pounds without the box! at 3 dollars the pound I pay.... man thats a lot of dollars.

They should have just put a g4 processor in the imac g3 enclosure, would have sold like hotcakes, and a little 15 flatscreen CRT, up the ram and the hd and the burner, make it color customizable (sage? flower power? dalmatian???? pleeeease they had better fired the guy who was high on crack when he thought of that) and make it 700 bucks............ would have blown the mac mini away 3 years ahead of time.

YEAH!!!

[caveman_uk]

I agree with HiRez, the Pismo looks beautiful. In fact, it's my very favorite Mac from an appearance standpoint.
Can I third that? I've never owned one but I've always thought the Pismo looked nice.

[chucknorris]

iMac G5. Uninspired, boring slab that looks like it took 2 minutes to think up. The Jurassic Park 2 to the iMac G4's Jurassic Park.

I had to speak up here...

I love the G5s! I would buy one in a heartbeat, if finances would allow.

The G4s looked very clumsy and disproportionate (IMO, of course).

The G5s are just beautiful simplicity though, nothing obtrusive or distracting.

I drool over the 17" at the university bookstore everytime I go in there.

This is of course all opinion thus worthless to argue, but nevertheless, there's my argument!

:D :D

[VanNess]

the emac for me... it was a step backwards... why go 17inch and be THAT BIG? I understand it being cheap and all but... it's not affordable once you ship it out of the US. Too expensive to ship out due to its weight. its like 60 pounds without the box! at 3 dollars the pound I pay.... man thats a lot of dollars.

YEAH!!!


Actually the eMac is shorter in depth (from the screen to the back) than the original iMac. Considering that it's also packing the computer, speakers, and optical drive inside, it pretty compact for a 17 inch glass tube.

But nobody ever said it was portable :D

[Nermal]

Performa 5200, an incredibly slow piece of garbage

Seconded.

[Patch^]

Well I personally like all macs, but there are some design features i dislike on the iBook G4 and iMac G3, On the iBook I dislike the keyboard and track-pad button, very clunky also the speakers are a bit of an eye-sore at times, besides that they are great machines.

With the iMac G3 i absolutely hated the mouse that came with them it was very un-ergonomical and a pain to use. It was like a flat disc that had a small button. But the machine was great, even though at times it was slow. Just had to get a different mouse when i used it :/

[4D4M]

With the iMac G3 i absolutely hated the mouse that came with them it was very un-ergonomical and a pain to use. It was like a flat disc that had a small button. But the machine was great, even though at times it was slow. Just had to get a different mouse when i used it :/
Ah yes, the dreaded hockey puck mouse. I was unfortunate enough to have been given two of those things with Macs I bought. I often wondered how the company that gave the world such revolutionary (at the time) designs as the G3 Power Mac and iMac could have given us such an appalling input device!

[shadowmoses]

Controversial maybe but i am not a big fan of the iMac G5 design......Saying that its not my most disliked mac, most disliked mac would have to be the old clamshell iBooks....

ShadOW

[Edge100]

My Powermac 5400 was pretty bad. Not a bad performer for its day (180Mhz, 1.2GB HD, 32MB RAM...bought when I started at McGill in Sept, 1997). But ugly as sin.

The ultimate poor performer has to be the original Classic. You can say the Classic II was crippled compared to the SE/30, which it was. But hell, I bought a Classic in 1990 (I think), and it had the SAME components as the Mac Plus, which was introduced 4 years earlier (8 MHz 68000, 2MB RAM). Hell, it was only marginally better than the original Mac (it had a 40MB HD, which was nice). I remember trying to install System 7 with 3-4 floppies, and the thing was SLOOOWWW! Now that thing was a piece of crap. But it got me through high school and was STILL better than most of the PCs of its day which were running DOS 5 or 6.

My original iceBook iBook (500Mhz, DVD, 384MB RAM, 10GB HD) has always been a favorite. Yeah, its slow in Tiger (esp. with 384MB RAM), but I still boot into 9.2 and it never lets me down. Great computer. I wrote an entire grant application (including figures done in Illustrator 10) in 10.3 last summer using nothing but the iBook, and it worked wonders.

My G3 iMac (600) is starting to get to me. Its my main music production computer, and Logic 7 REALLY bogs it down. Cant wait for this damn Ph.D. to be finished so I can get a real job and a G5 iMac.

[fartheststar]

My most disliked mac is the mac I cannot afford now and all the macs that were available to me prior to my first mac that I never "clued in" on. :D

[alexprice]

How can anyone dislike a mac, look at this picture.... its a pc

[pianojoe]

Performa 6400...

I bit because of the built-in-subwoofer...Basically anything based on the 603 ppc sucked a$$.

I second that opinion! I "upgraded" from a PM7100/80 to a Performa 6400/200 because I needed a PCI slot of my Audiowerk sound card. What a crappy machine. 250% cycles and no noticable performance gain!

[jaw04005]

How can no-one have mentioned the Flower-Power and Dalmation iMacs. Really nasty (http://www.apple-history.com/?page=gallery&model=imac_cdrw)

Totally agree. Those had a rare less than 6 month product cycle. Hehe. I wonder why? :D

My college has an entire lab filled with Blue Dalmation iMacs. Everyone in my class makes fun of their colors, when we are required to use that lab. :eek:

I personally don't like the Performa line of computers. Way too many models, and you couldn't just assume that because the model number was higher it was more powerful. Many times the upper model numbers were slower than their lower counterparts. Heh. Great marketing!

[rainman::|:|]

surprised by how many people don't like the iMac G5, i think it's one of their best designs yet. Set designers must agree, as it keeps appearing in tv shows/ photos/ etc. I'd have to say the iMac G4 was one of my least-favorite, it looked so much like a toy. The larger screens looked too big for it. My boyfriend regrets never owning one, so I suppose i'll have to buy one eventually...

beyond that... The IIVx case was like a theater inside, i hated that. so big and wasteful. I really dislike any one-piece Mac except the TAM and the iMac G5. The PM5400 was especially awful, and flakey to boot. Performas have always sucked the big one, the 550(I think?) all-in-one (also sold as an LC 580 or something like that) was one of the ugliest designs they ever made, so topheavy, looked like the monitor should be removable but wasn't. But there were a lot of models in there, i can remember looking at and thinking "wow, that's so cool, that's how multimedia should look". looking back, of course it's all tragic. beige seemed to make sense...

[jaw04005]

Because the iMac G5 is something that really anyone could have designed. It just doesn't scream apple's "think different" slogan as much as the the g4 predecessor.

Ohh I think I'll take an LCD panel and mount a computer behind it. It looks like a pizza box!

I felt the same way when I first saw the iMac G5. Compared to the iMac G3 and especially G4, the design didn't have an Apple-feel to it. Remember, Steve once showed a design simiar to the iMac G5 when the iMac G4 was introduced and went on and on about how it was a bad design. LOL. My how things change, Steve. :rolleyes:

[Ti_Poussin]

The iMac dalmatian and Flower were totaly ugly. The iMac G3 in general was crap IMO. But the iMac G4 was totaly awesome, I loved those, never got one but they look great.

But the best looking was my Cube, they were beautiful machine, silent, people didn't even remark it was a computer, how many time I got asked "where is your computer, I see the screen but...". The cube and Powerbook G4 Ti and Al are my favorite machine from the outside. I really like the G5 internal design, look like a server in a tower, kind of cool.

But the coolest ever was made by riscx:
http://www.riscx.com/blueiceg4/
Totaly gorgeous

[jaw04005]

yuh, the make-up case G3 iBooks were "different", but man were they TOUGH.

I still regret not purchasing a Lime iBook G3 SE. Those things still grab 900+ on eBay! Ridiculous, they're worth more than my White iBook G3.

They were extremely durable because of the rubber edging. I remember watching Phil Schiller jump out of the rafters at Macworld into a giant air bag to demonstrate the durability of the clamshell iBooks. Hehe. Talk about excitement.

[mynameisjesse]

i cant believe some of you think the g5 imac is ugly! i LOVE it and think it ***** on the g4 imac. yeah, you can adjust the height, but ive never once had to. its a beautiful machine that runs just as good as it looks.

[macEfan]

Yes, the 6400 sucks, cause the graphix card is the worst on the plannet!!!!

Only 256 colors @ 800/600!!!

If U upgrade the video the computer is a lot better!!!

[CompUser]

I really hated the G3 iMacs. The 5 original colors, the flower powers, and the other wierd color one were the worst. The Indigo, Ruby, Sage, and graphite ones aren't as bad. The Snow iMac was pretty ugly IMO too.

I hate the eMac. They're to big and for some reason I just don't like using them. It seems like I can't use CRT monitors anymore. They're not as sharp so they give me a headache. I have a 21" CRT and I'm not using it right now not just because it is a CRT, but beacuse it is just so HUGE that I hate having to move my head/eyes so much to see another part of the screen.

G5 iMac- hate it. They should have tried not to have that HUGE bezel at the bottom.

iBook G3- They had them at my middle school and two years after they got them about 5/40 were given to teachers, 10 were put in the media center, and the rest were thrown into a pile of destroyed computers. Of the 10 in the media center 2 had keyboards with no missing keys, 1's screen was falling off, 2 others had optical drives that wouldn't shut, etc.

[Man In Black]

The clamshell iBooks looked like a toy computer. The Flower Power and Blue Dalmation iMacs were super ugly.

I think the Power Mac Cube was awesome. Very cool. I think the G4 iMac was the best looking, but Im guessing there was limited expandability due to the small base housing the componets. The G5 isnt bad, but it isnt as creative as some. The G5 always looks like if you bump it it'll fall over.

[HiRez]

Only 256 colors @ 800/600!!!
Yeah, I hated the Macs that could only do 640 x *400* at higher color bit depths, back before the time when oddball resolutions and aspect ratios were common. You would get games or other apps that would only run at 640x480 and have 80 pixels lopped off because there was not enough VRAM in those boxes. I forget which models, but LC and PowerBook 540c sound right to me.

[sambo.]

I still regret not purchasing a Lime iBook G3 SE. Those things still grab 900+ on eBay! Ridiculous, they're worth more than my White iBook G3.

They were extremely durable because of the rubber edging. I remember watching Phil Schiller jump out of the rafters at Macworld into a giant air bag to demonstrate the durability of the clamshell iBooks. Hehe. Talk about excitement.

man, those G3 cosmetics-case iBooks had some really serious protection built into them. the white G3's, while sure, they looked better (imho) didn't have the same level of protection. i know, a mates white G3 iBook copped a MINOR knock which cracked the screen (i know, i saw him knock it...). five minutes later, kid comes screaming out of the hall, trips on my mums power-cable, mums "cosmetics case" goes flying......

....she picks it up, puts it back on the table and keeps working. not a mark on it!

i own a G3/333PB, if the original iBooks had a SCSI port or a PCMCIA port, or if i'd had a USB-Neg-Scanner at the time, i would have bought one of them instead.

i rekon Apple should bring back the design with a G4 in it and market it to skoolkids. people underestimate the durability of that design. mums has copped far more than any other laptop i know off and has kept on truckin', just the battery has finally given up the ghost.

oh yeah, and there isn't a single dead pixel in EITHER of those two laptop screens......

six years service and COUNTING (both of those machines are still in regular use), i call it "Value For Money"

[RacerX]

You would get games or other apps that would only run at 640x480 and have 80 pixels lopped off because there was not enough VRAM in those boxes. I forget which models, but LC and PowerBook 540c sound right to me.On the PowerBook side the models were the 540c, Duo 270c, 280c, 2300c. On the desktop side it was the LC III and Performa 450.

And you could run them at either 640x480 (at 256 colors) or 640x400 (at thousands).


On earlier PowerBooks (100, 140, 145, 145b, 150, 160, 165, 165c, 170, 180, Duo 210, 230, 250, 280) you could only run at 640x400 as that was all the pixels that their display's had. The PowerBook 180c was the first with a 640x480 display (at 256 colors), but was not able to have the resolution down size to 640x400 to display thousands of colors.

As long as we are on the subject of PowerBook displays... the 5300ce was the first PowerBook with an 800x600 display and the PowerBook G3 Wallstreet was the first to have a 1024x768 display.

One of the reasons Jobs felt that Apple had fallen behind in the laptop market was the fact that Apple's top of the line PowerBook (the 3400c) only had an 800x600 display. It was rumored that Jobs walked into the PowerBook division with his IBM ThinkPad running OPENSTEP (thousands of colors at 1024x768) and held it up saying this is what the PowerBook should be like.


Someone earlier said they didn't like the PowerBook G3 series. And I think another person said that they thought it looked like some other PC laptop.

When the Wallstreet was released, no other laptop in the world looked like it. Further, not only was the Wallstreet faster than any other laptop in production at the time (so were the Kanga PowerBook G3 and PowerBook 3400c when they were released), it was also faster than most PC desktops.


I always find it funny when people forget that in the mid 90's PowerPC was so far ahead of x86 based processors that it looked like Apple would never be challenged for speed. Of course when Apple adopted the G4 and Motorola had problems producing the 500 MHz versions (and later had problems getting them past 500 MHz), the x86 industry was able to make up a lot of ground.

But when Apple was using the PowerPC 604e (and 603e in PowerBooks) and G3 processors, they were well ahead of the performance curve.

[macEfan]

On the PowerBook side the models were the 540c, Duo 270c, 280c, 2300c. On the desktop side it was the LC III and Performa 450.

And you could run them at either 640x480 (at 256 colors) or 640x400 (at thousands).


On earlier PowerBooks (100, 140, 145, 145b, 150, 160, 165, 165c, 170, 180, Duo 210, 230, 250, 280) you could only run at 640x400 as that was all the pixels that their display's had. The PowerBook 180c was the first with a 640x480 display (at 256 colors), but was not able to have the resolution down size to 640x400 to display thousands of colors.

As long as we are on the subject of PowerBook displays... the 5300ce was the first PowerBook with an 800x600 display and the PowerBook G3 Wallstreet was the first to have a 1024x768 display.

One of the reasons Jobs felt that Apple had fallen behind in the laptop market was the fact that Apple's top of the line PowerBook (the 3400c) only had an 800x600 display. It was rumored that Jobs walked into the PowerBook division with his IBM ThinkPad running OPENSTEP (thousands of colors at 1024x768) and held it up saying this is what the PowerBook should be like.


Someone earlier said they didn't like the PowerBook G3 series. And I think another person said that they thought it looked like some other PC laptop.

When the Wallstreet was released, no other laptop in the world looked like it. Further, not only was the Wallstreet faster than any other laptop in production at the time (so were the Kanga PowerBook G3 and PowerBook 3400c when they were released), it was also faster than most PC desktops.


I always find it funny when people forget that in the mid 90's PowerPC was so far ahead of x86 based processors that it looked like Apple would never be challenged for speed. Of course when Apple adopted the G4 and Motorola had problems producing the 500 MHz versions (and later had problems getting them past 500 MHz), the x86 industry was able to make up a lot of ground.

But when Apple was using the PowerPC 604e (and 603e in PowerBooks) and G3 processors, they were well ahead of the performance curve.

yeah, they were like 100 mhz ahead of PCees.

[Edge100]

I really hated the G3 iMacs. The 5 original colors, the flower powers, and the other wierd color one were the worst. The Indigo, Ruby, Sage, and graphite ones aren't as bad. The Snow iMac was pretty ugly IMO too.

I hate the eMac. They're to big and for some reason I just don't like using them. It seems like I can't use CRT monitors anymore. They're not as sharp so they give me a headache. I have a 21" CRT and I'm not using it right now not just because it is a CRT, but beacuse it is just so HUGE that I hate having to move my head/eyes so much to see another part of the screen.

G5 iMac- hate it. They should have tried not to have that HUGE bezel at the bottom.

iBook G3- They had them at my middle school and two years after they got them about 5/40 were given to teachers, 10 were put in the media center, and the rest were thrown into a pile of destroyed computers. Of the 10 in the media center 2 had keyboards with no missing keys, 1's screen was falling off, 2 others had optical drives that wouldn't shut, etc.


Wow! Do you like ANY Macs at all?

[superninjagoat]

How about the Mac LC II. 16 mhz of SUCK! This was the design machine I used to produce a student newspaper in high school, and it was the slowest, most crash-prone dung heap I've ever used. Too many short cuts taken in the design. We bought it to replace an original LC, and with a 68030 replacing the 68020, we thought it would be a better piece of equipment. It wasn't. There was almost no increase in speed over the older machine sitting next to it, and it crashed more often (which was an OS dot release problem, I believe).

I think it was repackaged as the Performa 400 or something, but I'm too lazy to fact check to see if I remember correctly.

[macEfan]

I think U are right. I think almost all of the performa line also sucked also. (Especially the early 'formas. :)

[zen.state]

my most disliked mac would have to be the powerbook 540c. I bought one used in early 98 that had a cpu upgrade from a 040 33mhz (68k) to a 603e 117mhz (ppc). it was a great running system but the hinge was total crap. the plastic cover at the bottom of the screen would catch at the back of the kb also. after a couple months like that I just took off that little cover. I paid 1100 us for it which at the time was a good deal. it also came with an external zip drive.

as a system it worked fine but that damn hinge was a pain in my butt. it was my first mac also btw.

[icarusflies]

Performa 6400...

I bit because of the built-in-subwoofer...Basically anything based on the 603 ppc sucked a$$.

http://www.forbidden-planet.org/About/Images/ComputerHistory/performa6400.gif


Great piece of perceptive engineering by apple that. Lets put a big subwoofer that vibrates like hell right into a machine. A friend of mine had one of these and he had to reseat all the cards and memory every month. Bad Apple - slap!

[TheMonarch]

I've seen those at school before. They were slow, but I don't understand the subwoofer part. It sure does look like one though, thats what I thought you guys were talking about, but then mentioned vibrations... Whats all that about?

[mmcneil]

From Battery Fires to Poor Reliability the 5300 has to be the least favorite Mac :p - it was a "visual aid" of all the reasons Apple was in deep trouble at that time. I actually refused an "upgrade" to a 5300 and waited until the G3 Powerbook Bronze Keyboard came out before I allowed them to replace my machine.

This would be a good poll :cool:

[northernleitz]

I hated the original G3 iMacs (tray loaders) the college newspaper I worked at had. They wouldn't even spit the tray out all the way; you had to pull the tray out an extra three inches or so. Stupid hockey puck mouse, stupid tiny function and arrow keys on that stupid little keyboard, not enough memory to do squat, crashed all the time, and strange texture on the case. Lime green in color. Blech!

I hated them all the more because I had just bought a 500 MHZ iMac DV SE that came with the best keyboard Apple has ever made (Apple Pro keyboard--graphite), along with the optical mouse. That thing was brilliant in comparison.

[zap2]

I hated the original G3 iMacs (tray loaders) the college newspaper I worked at had.


yet some would say that very computer saved apple :D

[RacerX]

From Battery Fires to Poor Reliability the 5300 has to be the least favorite Mac Well, it should be noted that the only battery fire was on a prerelease 5300 and Apple pulled all those batteries (made by Sony) before any of those systems made it into customers hands.

On the other hand, the 5300 had number of case flaws and internal components that were prone to breaking. This was why Apple offered (back in 1998/1999) owners of the 5300 series PowerBooks money (around $700 as I recall) to sell them back to Apple. They wanted to get those systems off the street.

[zap2]

Remember, Steve once showed a design simiar to the iMac G5 when the iMac G4 was introduced and went on and on about how it was a bad design. LOL. My how things change, Steve. :rolleyes:

Steve messed up

but the iMac G5 is great G4 iMac is nice looking but the iMac G5 is liek a G3 with the backcut off, and a whole lot faster!

[northernleitz]

yet some would say that very computer saved apple :D

Agreed. But I would say that the first iMac was a poor execution of a brilliant idea. Apple got it right eventually, they just went a little crazy with the little/yellow/different approach at first.

[jiv3turkey748]

my least favorite macs are the clamshell ibooks those things are ugly

edit: i forgot about flower power imacs those are even worse than clamshell ibooks

[jiv3turkey748]

Agreed. But I would say that the first iMac was a poor execution of a brilliant idea. Apple got it right eventually, they just went a little crazy with the little/yellow/different approach at first.

i loved the original imacs i remember when my dad got a lime green 233mhz imac right after they came out and i thought it was the coolest thing ever

[748s]

never hated any mac but i have not liked the look of the eMate 300 and the clamshells.

[ebow]

When you people say the G3 iMac you can't possibly mean the entire line! First, as Zap2 pointed out, they're the computers that quite possibly saved Apple. Second, what I consider the pinnacle of the line, the Ruby, Indigo, Sage, Graphite, and Snow models (some colors later eliminated) were very stylin' and reasonably capable machines. Of course that's all a matter of opinion, but I'm personally having slight misgivings about selling my 500 MHz G3 iMac.

The G3 PowerBooks (Wallstreet and later) were like... tuxedos. Sharp. Sexy. :cool:


Now the G3 All-in-Ones... they were beasts. Heavy as hell and very awkward style, with a semi-transparent punched-hole plastic plate on top. And the PowerMac 5260s: a lot of kids at my college got those; I happened to upgrade to the 5400 instead. I didn't know a thing about Macs then, but what a lucky break. While superficially much like my behemoth PM 5400, the 5260s inside were, well, limited. And superninjagoat, right on about the LC IIs. We used them through high school, and sad to admit, they turned me into a know-little adolescent Mac-basher. :p

[Lacero]

20th Anniversary Mac - truly an ugly, expensive computer.

[seriypshick]

I dislike pre-OS X macs.

[macEfan]

I dislike pre-OS X macs.
your right, they seem to run a lot slower.

[MattG]

I was never crazy about the clamshell iBook. I knew someone that had one and I always found it to be very 'clunky' and not Apple-like.

[RandomDeadHead]

I dislike pre-OS X macs.
I dislike all post-system 7 Apple Computers

your right, they seem to run a lot slower.
I wonder why that is? :rolleyes:


IMO, All performas should burn in hell.

[20rogersc]

The new iMac's, don't get me wrong there great looking computers in which im considering purchasing, however i loved the G4 models.

That iMac G4 commerical is classic :DYup, they certainly are my least favourite looking mac, by a long way.

::20ROGERSC::

[Xapplimatic]

Definitely hated the ugly beige plasticy bloated bread boxes! Quadras, Centras, all those, hate hate hate!

Also hate the dull-colored semi-opaque plastic with cheese-grater holy-metal box backdrop tray-loading first generation iMacG3s.. These iMacs were even uglier than eMacs, with the aerodynamics of a bus, about as heavy and definitely as slow to get up to speed! YECK! The clear-colored revised slot loading ones (Ruby, Saphire, Graphite, Snow, Emerald) were majorly better looking, much more svelt, less cluttered looking, less Bus-like, and with better colors than yucky dull blue, dried up prune purple, and drab orange! Look mah! No hockey pucks! ;P

Why are so many people on here down on the iMac G5? After all, I can't even see what the computer looks like, all I see is a screen! ;)

G4 iMacs.. love them. If anything, it shows how much Apple has Pixar envy.. (Lampy, hello!).. Oh yeah, Steve CEOs both of them. Hmmm.. Where did they get the idea for the G4's adjustable telescope neck? lol. I would not mind a return to that design at all.

iBook G3s, colored, no problems. Toiletseat, clamshell whatever.. mine was pretty in graphite. Loved the way the light would shine off its curved plastic. Icebooks went back to beige box shapes.. bore me.. At least if it has to have the lines of a Trabant, shouldn't it be metal like the car? That's the only reason I went with the PowerBook. Square has to be metal or it looks cheap!

[ryannel2003]

I can't believe all the people talking about the eMacs, iMac G3's, and iMac G5's! I mean, the iMac G3 is the computer that saved Apple plus has the coolest colors ever. The eMac is an excellent computer, and doesn't look ugly at all. Plus it has the sharpest CRT I have ever used. And the iMac G5! OMG, those computers are so beautiful. Now I do still prefer the iMac G4, but the G5 is awesome! Fast processor, large screens, and sexy design! I want one! But my vote for the ugliest Mac is the Flower Power iMac G3. It looks like somebody threw up on the kitchen floor, then somebody took a mop and moved it all around. Blue Dalmation is ok, but it isn't my favorite iMac G3. My favorite Mac would have to be the 17" iMac G4. Beautiful!

[PaRaGoNViCtiM]

I just can't get down with the Clamshell iBooks.

[wozzlewoozle]

flower power imac. What were they thinking...?

[latergator116]

iBook G3 - unreliable pieces of crap.
G3 All-in-one - Not a bad computer, but it was huge and bulky.

[ryannel2003]

flower power imac. What were they thinking...?

They were on something, very, very strong!

[d_and_n5000]

how dare anyone diss the clamshells? they were revoulutionary, they were better looking that the g3 imac, and they were different. I don't know about you, but thoses were stunning. But i will admit that the firewire clams were a lot better lookin-white instead of that clearish thing. The key lime 466 was a piece of genius. i also enjoyed the indigo a lot-my fave color, with the key lime in a close second! :cool:

But i have to say that the worst mac were the powermac/performa 5200 series. They were ugly, and boy were they slow! slow slow slow slow slow. i did not like them at all.

[w_parietti22]

Grey PowerMac G3.

[Psycho Therapis]

My first Mac was a Performa 5200, 2nd hand of course. Boy is this thing horribly slow! It didn't put me off Macs though, infact it practically forced me to get something better. Now the Performa 5200 sits gathering dust, as it's practically useless.

Based upon appearance alone, I hate the look of the TAM & the Flower Power, Dalmation & Strawberry iMacs.

[Yvan256]

Has to be those PowerMac G4's.

Fisher-Price look, turbine engine noise. Nothing "Pro" about them.

[kwajo.com]

how dare anyone diss the clamshells? they were revoulutionary, they were better looking that the g3 imac, and they were different. I don't know about you, but thoses were stunning. But i will admit that the firewire clams were a lot better lookin-white instead of that clearish thing. The key lime 466 was a piece of genius. i also enjoyed the indigo a lot-my fave color, with the key lime in a close second! :cool:

But i have to say that the worst mac were the powermac/performa 5200 series. They were ugly, and boy were they slow! slow slow slow slow slow. i did not like them at all.

I agree, how dare anyone diss the clamshell iBook! I have one of the firewire key lime ones and it is amazing! the thing is tough as nails and is a joy to type on hour after hour. I have a dual G5 and yet I've written every word of my university thesis to date on my lime iBook - why? because it is a fantastic computer and it still runs all the current apple software (outside of the pro video apps)

[miloblithe]

I've written every word of my university thesis to date on my lime iBook - why? because it is a fantastic computer and it still runs all the current apple software (outside of the pro video apps)

Can it run Tiger?

[Anonymous Freak]

Great specs for the time, but what a piece of junk. I currently have five of them; and only one is fully functional. (It's the one that was sent back for the extended warranty repair.)

[iEdd]

Mac Mini: Good value, good looks on the outside, 3/4s of 4/5s of **** all on the inside :D
Nah.. It's a great computer still, just expensive.
Dunno what my least favourite mac ever is.

[sebisworld]

The U2 iPod.

[bousozoku]

My dad's slot-loading iMac G3/350. It's broken again. It won't complete startup now. While it was working, the modem suddenly stopped working above 19, 200 bps again.

It wasn't incredibly expensive but it certainly wasn't cheap, considering the times it's been repaired/unusable.

[hulugu]

Worst Mac ever? The Clamshell G3 iBooks. Colored like iMacs, but in the shape of a toilet bowl.
Some of the early '90s beige boxes were ugly, but this thing was ugly and embarrasingly outdated the day they came out, especially compared to the black G3/G4 Powerbooks and the Titanium Powerbook.
Someone mentioned the iMac, and I have to say that computer was really cool looking, even if you include the later Dalmation and Flower-Power boxes—which were a bad idea, but not as hideous as the Clamshells.
As for the iMac G4 and G5, both are great designs, but I think the iMac G4 belongs in the same realm as the Cube, a neat design that turned out to be impractical.

[hulugu]

My dad's slot-loading iMac G3/350. It's broken again. It won't complete startup now. While it was working, the modem suddenly stopped working above 19, 200 bps again.

It wasn't incredibly expensive but it certainly wasn't cheap, considering the times it's been repaired/unusable.

I bought mine in 1997 and it still works really well. It's slow and the hard-drive is full, but it runs Panther like a champ with a RAM upgrade. A friend of mine bought it and it's her internet appliance.

[hulugu]

Has to be those PowerMac G4's.

Fisher-Price look, turbine engine noise. Nothing "Pro" about them.

The Quicksilver machines were great, those cool curving lucite handles, the big grey apple logo. They're not as quiet as the iMacs, but they were great until the 'wind-tunnel' versions. Not all PowerMac G4s are alike.

[mjstew33]

Quadra 630 - had one a while back (1995?) and it couldn't even run ClarisWorks :rolleyes:

[Cfg5]

Clamshell iBook - talk about fisherprice.
Powermac g3's - Didn't like the colors.