Imac's 3rd birthday!!!!!!

[macaddict123k]

Today is the imac's 3rd birthday. Everyone that has an imac, post something on this thread.

[mischief]

I've often thought of Computer years something like Dog years: about 20:1. So my little 333 is about 50!!. Rev A's are about retirement age, athough it is possible to pull a 6 million dollar Mac on them to get roughly the performance of an Ibook. My little Imac is great but I think They're a 1 time buy. My next'll be a tower or TiBook. The Imac'll get it's original little drive back and become a Net Appliance. Now if I could just collect social security for it..............

[evildead]

I thought it was older than that. More like 4. mayby I am wrong. I have a Rev-A original Bondi blue iMac. Remeber when then came with the IR port in the front that was not compatable with almost any IR devices? It came with a 233Mhz G3, 32MB RAM, 4Gig DH, and one of those little tiny mouses that everyone hates. When I got it Epson was the only CO. that made a USB printer. I have a matching Bondi blue scanner, QPS CD-RW drive and USB hub. I dropped in a 466Mhz G3 and 192MB RAM to give it new life.

I love my iMac!

[Edited by evildead on 08-16-2001 at 12:01 PM]

[appleman06]

I don't have an iMac, but I still think they rule! They are one of the best desktop buys out there, especially for the consumer. This little baby turned Apple around, and I think we should all give thanks to it. If it wasn't for this all-in-one, colorful design, the company we love so very much might not exist today, so therefore, this forum and website wouldn't exist.

Sorry, just my little rant. Yes I know it's pretty corny, sue me.

[spikey]

My Rev.a aint retiring yet, its still decent on the net. i only got 96 megs RAM though.
im waiting to upgrade it with a G3 & firewire product, i think sonnet is going to make it.... though im not sure. should cost £300 though, sounds good to me.

[Kela]

Although the Imac saved the day for apple, I was never a fan. Never thought of buyuing it. ALways prefered apple's heavy duty products. They better put a g4 into the new ones before every user wakes up to realize that the G3 is gettin real old.

- old grouch Kela.

P.s Bah humbug.

[evildead]

I love my iMac but I am going to retire it today. I have been tracking my order from Apple and I should recive my 867 Quicksilver today! My Rev-A is still going to be in service... but its work load is going to be cut.

[spikey]

****ing show off

[Megaquad]

i hate my g3 350 imac because it is 6x slower then my neighbours 433 celeron

[mischief]

The machine itself executes faster but the little guy has both a slower bus than the celeron and only 6(?)Mb of VRAM. I used to be sure but my copy of GURU has disappeared. Either way, it kinda short-changes all but the newest iMac buyers.

[Kela]

G4s eat Celerons and Pentium 4 (which are seriously retarted in performance). The g3 is a bit slow when you can get a good g4 for a couple of hundred bucks more. Na ja, whats one 2 do.

[Megaquad]

Originally posted by Kela
G4s eat Celerons and Pentium 4 (which are seriously retarted in performance). The g3 is a bit slow when you can get a good g4 for a couple of hundred bucks more. Na ja, whats one 2 do.

********,g3 is retarded crap,g4 is crap,you can do more with low end celeron then with hi-end mac...

[spikey]

interesting take on life as a whole
cant say i agree cos intel makes ***** chips
a G4 would eat a pentium at most things, apart from gaming probably.
however i see where u r coming from
AMDs best chip is £150 while a G4 is like double that.
im afraid the G4 is not as good at most things as an athlon.
and yet the athlon is cheaper
right now macs are not good value for money, infact they r very bad value for money.
but i have a feeling all that might change when the G5 comes along

actually the only macs that kick major ass are the laptops, just love em.

[Edited by spikey on 08-26-2001 at 05:49 PM]

[Kela]

Megaquad...whose side are you on man? You actually think that a DUAL G4 800 MHZ, running OSX 10.1 with 512 of ram is slower than any PC out there? I SERIOUSLY DOUBT THAT. MAybe Quake 3 gets 2 or three more frames on the local freak's PC, but thats it.

[john123]

Originally posted by Kela
Megaquad...whose side are you on man? You actually think that a DUAL G4 800 MHZ, running OSX 10.1 with 512 of ram is slower than any PC out there? I SERIOUSLY DOUBT THAT. MAybe Quake 3 gets 2 or three more frames on the local freak's PC, but thats it.

The dual 800 also costs $3500 while the local freak got his computer for under $1000 with free Internet access for a few months and a service contract for the rest of the year. Just something to think about...

[spikey]

Yeah true, PCs without doubt give better value for money. I have just seen the fps in quake on a dual 800...****ing impressive though.

[Megaquad]

Originally posted by Kela
Megaquad...whose side are you on man? You actually think that a DUAL G4 800 MHZ, running OSX 10.1 with 512 of ram is slower than any PC out there? I SERIOUSLY DOUBT THAT. MAybe Quake 3 gets 2 or three more frames on the local freak's PC, but thats it.

what i am saying is that pentium 800 mhz is faster then dp 800 in everything but photoshop

[spikey]

Actually you are completely wrong.
Intel chips on a whole suck monkey dick.
They are **** chips which are cheaply made and yet sold at a higher price than AMD athlons.
The basic design of the pentium 3 for example has not changed since the Pentium 166. The new Pentium 4 is crap because intel trid to make a new design of chip, but to release it quickly they did not follow the original design, and implemented a 20 stage pipeline to it to give huge Hz improvements.
so in short you should stop looking at what other ****ing zealots are saying and you should find out info about chips yourself.
A dual 800 would kick a pentium 800's ass, both in gaming and in photoshop and in whatever programs you like to masturbate in.
If you want to compare a mac to a processor compare it to an athlon and stop believing the ***** u seem to take in from intel and their followers.

[Megaquad]

Originally posted by spikey
Actually you are completely wrong.
Intel chips on a whole suck monkey dick.
They are **** chips which are cheaply made and yet sold at a higher price than AMD athlons.
The basic design of the pentium 3 for example has not changed since the Pentium 166. The new Pentium 4 is crap because intel trid to make a new design of chip, but to release it quickly they did not follow the original design, and implemented a 20 stage pipeline to it to give huge Hz improvements.
so in short you should stop looking at what other ****ing zealots are saying and you should find out info about chips yourself.
A dual 800 would kick a pentium 800's ass, both in gaming and in photoshop and in whatever programs you like to masturbate in.
If you want to compare a mac to a processor compare it to an athlon and stop believing the ***** u seem to take in from intel and their followers.

yeah...what ever you say dude,but i have seen it with my own eyes,pentium is not as bad as you are making it
athlon is maybe 5-20% better,depends,
unfortuately it's very unstable

[Kela]

A Pentium 800 is FASTER than a Dual G4 800??????? LOL!!
A Dual G4 800 Quiksilver is faster than a Pentium 1.6 GHZ. SO please....

[spikey]

The athlon is that much better a chip because of the reasons i have stated.
The G4 is also a much better chip.
I also cant believe you like a chip that has a 20 stage pipeline.
u r very wrong

[Kela]

I dont know technical facts but is it safe to say that in terms of processing power this is the order??

1) G4
2) AMD Athlon
3) G3
4) Pentium

[Megaquad]

Originally posted by Kela
I dont know technical facts but is it safe to say that in terms of processing power this is the order??

1) G4
2) AMD Athlon
3) G3
4) Pentium

yeah right dude
1)athlon
2)Pentium
3)G4
4)G3

[Megaquad]

Originally posted by Kela
A Pentium 800 is FASTER than a Dual G4 800??????? LOL!!
A Dual G4 800 Quiksilver is faster than a Pentium 1.6 GHZ. SO please....

you are incredibly dumb

[Kela]

Megaquad=John123=jackasses.