Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Most disliked mac
- Thread starter macEfan
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
My faulty logic board iBook is my most ugliest 
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
just because it crapped out on me way too muchfor 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
dornoforpyros said:
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.
mad jew said:
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"
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
i like it way more then any PC i have had
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.
I think the powerbook g3 obviously takes the prize for making you want to gouge your eyes out with a baby's feeding spoon.
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.
$0.02
yuh, the make-up case G3 iBooks were "different", but man were they TOUGH.
i prolly hate the Lisa most. bastard thing cost me a mint (AUD$8,000+ at the time ) and was superceeded by the Mac OS so quickly.
ARRRRGH.
mad jew said: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.
yuh, the make-up case G3 iBooks were "different", but man were they TOUGH.
i prolly hate the Lisa most. bastard thing cost me a mint (AUD$8,000+ at the time ) and was superceeded by the Mac OS so quickly.ARRRRGH.
how can you say this?
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
chaosbunny said:
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
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:
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:
Attachments
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.conditionals said:I think the powerbook g3 obviously takes the prize for making you want to gouge your eyes out with a baby's feeding spoon.
The thing that made the data path issues so maddening was that Apple seemed to make some of the most odd choices.topicolo said:
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.
Can I third that? I've never owned one but I've always thought the Pismo looked nice.Xeem said:
alex_ant said:
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!
VicMacs said:
andy89 said:
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
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 :/
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 :/