Imac wannabe

[G4scott]

Originally posted by mymemory
Ok, people, all you are missing a little something:

What is doing a SPDF port in that computer?

As far as I know, SPDF connectors are used to transfer digital audio from one DAT to another or from one DAT to a Protools hardware or any other PROFESIONAL AUDIO DEVICE only, it is not a consumer protocol. It is like adding a midi port, so, What is that port doing there if nothing at some ones office or home use it?

May be is to fool the people sellingthem "something to connect digital audio devices" and the ignorant costumer would say "Ohhhh!!! Cool!!!!" and for what?

It doesn't even say if is an out put or imput connector. How am I going to use it if I can not capture something with it and viceversa?

I have a SPDF port on my Cambridge SoundWorks digital 2.1 speakers... They only costed $80, and I wouldn't consider them as pro material... I almost kinda wish my Mac had a SPD-IF port so that I could hook up my iBook to my speakers with digital sound... Does anyone know a cheap way to do this with USB?

 

[vniow]

Try this link. It's 80$, but it's supposed to be one of the best. There are ones cheaper, but Midiman is a reputable soundcard maker.

 

[aafuss1]

My current sound card cost less than $50-$40.00.

 

[iwantanewmac]

Re: He's right

Originally posted by Haberdasher
Iwannanewmac...firewire2001 is right.

I remember right after the first iMac was released...tons of products went translucent (even George Forman's Lean Mean Fat Reducing Grilling Machine, and it didn't get rid of the fat any better )

Regardless of whether it was ugly or not, it was a well designed machine that put Apple back on the board and set the trend for sleek, well designed consumer machines that everyone in the PC buisness *cough* DELL *cough* is trying to imitate.

WTF! are you guys blind?
I said it was a great computer. It still is.
What are you babbling about?
BTW apple didnt "invent" those translucent colours.
There was a lot of that stuff floating around allready.

 

[adelaney]

Did some math

No worries G4scott. Hey by the way, I got off my ass and actually did some math. A 15" TiBook widescreen has a viewable area of 105.05 square inches. A 15" standard has a viewable area of 108 square inches even. Assuming the same ratio of height to width exists for the iMac that exists for the TiBook than a 17" Apple widescreen has a viewable area of 134.94 square inches. A 17" standard has a viewable area of 138.72 square inches. So the difference in area is pretty well negligible. That's less than 4 square inches out of 139. So it is definitely better to have a widescreen iMac than a 17" standard iMac wannabe screen since it's better to have square inches on the side than on the top. Go apple, hopefully they'll get rid of the standard screens in the monitors, iBook, and eMac.

 

[imamacguy17]

We just built a new science building and we have machines that are very
similar and they suck ass. dude dont get a dell. Dude dont get a PC.

 

[Mr Jobs]

Originally posted by irmongoose
one word: UUUUUUUUUUUUGGLY!!!!




irmongoose

come on it is nowhere near as good looking as the iMac but it is most defiantly not ugly. lets not get over our heads here give credit where credit is due, had Apple designed this you would have spoken otherwise I’m sure.

I sure Gateway have taken ideas from the imac but there is only so many ways in which one can design an all-in-one computer so copied may be a bit too harsh

p.s I admit I do also have a vaio (one needs it for work) but I am an out an out mac user so don’t try flame me.

 

[adelaney]

No, it's ugly. Wouldn't matter who made it. Remember when those fake G4 tower pictures came out I think a year or so ago and everyone was talking about how ugly they were? Normally I would agree with you, we do tend to give Apple more credit than is do and PCs less. But when it comes to ugliness, you can tell. Both these models are ugly, the fake G4s were ugly and obviously fake because Apple wouldn't make something that ugly. If they had, and many people thought they had, they would have been called ugly. These are ugly embarrassments. If, tomorrow, Apple comes out with something ugly I will say it is ugly. In fact I am now going to call those two models that are pictured in this thread as iMucks. I don't know if that's original, but they really are pretty ugly and let's be honest about their ugliness.

 

[Mr Jobs]

Originally posted by adelaney
No, it's ugly. Wouldn't matter who made it. Remember when those fake G4 tower pictures came out I think a year or so ago and everyone was talking about how ugly they were? Normally I would agree with you, we do tend to give Apple more credit than is do and PCs less. But when it comes to ugliness, you can tell. Both these models are ugly, the fake G4s were ugly and obviously fake because Apple wouldn't make something that ugly. If they had, and many people thought they had, they would have been called ugly. These are ugly embarrassments. If, tomorrow, Apple comes out with something ugly I will say it is ugly. In fact I am now going to call those two models that are pictured in this thread as iMucks. I don't know if that's original, but they really are pretty ugly and let's be honest about their ugliness.

Hahahah well I must say I stand corrected instead I guess it’s, ‘beauty is in the eye of the beholder’