Why I just love the new iMac (and why you might, too)

Ziff Davis ^ | Feb. 4, 2002 | David Coursey

[toupsie]

		Why I just love the new iMac (and why you might, too)
		David Coursey, Executive Editor, AnchorDesk Monday, February 4, 2002

It's been a week since I started using a new iMac as my full-time desktop and a PowerBook G4 as my portable PC, all as part of my month-long challenge to see if I, long a loyal Windows user, could make Apple the center of my computing universe. There are still a few problems--specifically related to getting PDA data in and out of Microsoft Office.

But besides that, I've made a very smooth transition. I have even started using the Apple key instead of the Control key when cutting and pasting.

None of the photos I've seen do the new iMac justice. It's hard to take a picture of a white computer with a clear frame around the screen and make it look good. It is especially difficult to do this against a white background, as Apple is prone to do. They had the same problem with the iPod, which people thought was much larger than it is because they had seen it only on a billboard. Now, they didn't think it was that  big, but...

If you are trying to show off the iMac base--about the size of a big salad bowl turned upside down--it's hard to have the monitor in a normal position. This is probably why the best pictures of the new iMac, such as they are, have been taken from the side. That shows off the arm that connects the screen to the base rather nicely.

IN USE, the base of the iMac, which contains the computer itself, essentially disappears from view, hidden by the screen. The screen--a 15-inch flat panel--has all the predictable benefits of LCD displays, but the mounting mechanism is really special. This is the first time I've been able to position a screen precisely where I want it.

Mac OS X also does an excellent job of driving the screen, with great graphics performance. I am not quite so wild about the characters that show up while I am typing using Word or the other Microsoft Office apps. Microsoft has yet to fully implement the features of OS X that put great-looking fonts onto the screen.

This was likely lost in the rush to get a version of OS X to market and will be resolved in a future release. The "poor" quality of the Microsoft fonts is noticeable because the rest of the computer looks so great, not because it's putting my eyes out or anything.

The iMac has no fan--actually it has a fan, but I've never heard it--meaning my office is quieter than it used to be. The fan is thermally controlled, so it turns on only if the machine heats up. The iMac also has a very small footprint, leaving me with a lot of unused desk space.

If I were making any changes to the iMac, I'd increase the screen resolution (1024x768 is standard) or go to a 17-inch screen. The higher resolution is a personal preference (I need more open windows sometimes), and boosting the screen size would make the machines too expensive. To think of it, so would the increased resolution.

I'VE DISPENSED with the Apple one-button mouse that came with the machine. I replaced it with a Microsoft optical mouse with all the buttons and a thumbwheel. I just plugged it in, and it worked immediately. While the stock Apple mouse--with its single button--doesn't support right clicking, all the iMac apps seem to. This gives me access to a wide range of shortcuts I've grown used to under Windows. "Real" Apple users know you can control-click the one-button mouse to access the right-button features, but I still like my extra buttons and the thumbwheel.

The transition to the Mac way of doing things has been pretty easy, once I got the hang of the docking bar that is the OS X equivalent of the Windows start menu. Now that I have all my frequently used apps in the dock, I am a pretty happy camper.

Based on my experience, I have no reservations whatsoever recommending an iMac as a family's new or next home computer. Only really hard-core gamers would have trouble with a Mac, and those people should be looking at the new gaming consoles anyway.

I'M TEMPTED to say that Apple should have waited to make OS X the standard operating system for its consumer Macs, at least until there was better support for things such as Palm PDAs, media players for Windows Media, and Real Networks file formats. But as Steve Jobs told me on Day 1 of my Mac odyssey, there are some things that simply won't happen until the OS becomes the Apple standard.

I can't really disagree with that logic, so this is more a warning that you may find yourself working in classic mode from time to time. I am doing my very best to remain totally in OS X, so I have to admit that my concerns about this issue may be inflated.

As for working from the iMac, I can only hit the corporate Exchange mail server using a POP client or a Web browser. This isn't a problem for me, but it may be for a few of you. I also have not tried to find a VPN client, so I need to call our IS department and inquire.

The lack of OS X support for both Palm and Pocket PC devices is, however, troublesome. I think this will be worked out, at least for Pocket PC (and only with the help of a third-party developer) in a few weeks. Palm OS support will doubtless come, though I cannot today tell you when with any level of confidence. Six months seems likely.

I'VE HAD NO trouble exchanging files with colleagues, sending and receiving e-mail, or browsing the Web. And the free mail client Apple provides, though lacking a calendar function, works very well. Actually it's a better pure mail client than Microsoft's Entourage, its office productivity suite for the Macintosh platform.

It's for this reason that so many Mac users have separate calendar, contact management, and e-mail programs. The single-solution approach, àla Outlook and Entourage, is very attractive, but I am looking at other options as well.

The iPod is a fantastic MP3 player, and iTunes does a good job of managing my music. I want to find a "disco" software package, which I believe exists, to do some mixing, but the basic dubbing of music from CD (or Internet) to computer to iPod works very well.

THE MORE I USE IPHOTO, the more useful I find it. The program is not a photo editor, although it will allow you to crop a photo, correct red eye, and convert color images to black and white.

But iPhoto really shines in managing a large photo collection, thanks to its ability to vary thumbnails of the photos from very tiny to full-screen. This means you can zoom back and easily scroll through hundreds or, more likely, thousands of photos and then zoom in to pick the one you want.

iPhoto is also great for sharing your images. While the program does not have an easy way to resize and e-mail an image, it does a very nice job of collecting photos into books, which you can print at home or have commercially printed by Apple ($30 for 10 pages, and the books are really quite nice). iPhoto can also be used to create slide shows, HTML photo pages, and, of course, order prints.

OVERALL, I'D RATE the Macintosh photo "experience" significantly superior to Windows XP, although XP has the basics covered.

I have not played with iMovie, but finally have an idea for a home movie project (lacking kids, I have no ready players), so I am planning to compare the Mac and XP cinematic experiences this weekend.

Another area in which OS X has a little maturing to do is support for streaming media. Microsoft Media Player doesn't support all its formats on the new OS, meaning I can't listen to a number of online radio stations. Real doesn't seem to have announced an OS X version of RealPlayer, though I suspect one will appear.

So that's where things stand after the first week of "Mac Month" here in my office. About the only thing I am still using the XP box for is some instant messaging (especially during the radio program) and to keep the Outlook telephone directory open when I need to make a quick phone call.

It is me, or have things really changed? Is Apple gaining more credibility with longtime Windows users like me? What about with you? TalkBack to me, and take my QuickPoll below!

[toupsie]

Not being from San Francisco, I am not qualified to visit the apple Mac site.

I still don't understand why so many conservatives think that Rush Limbaugh is a cross dressing faggot because he prefers Macintosh systems. Must be that whole "latent" thing...

[toupsie]

The consensus being that Macs are for fairies and Democrats

As stated before, I am suprised how many conservatives think Rush Limbaugh is a flaming fairy because he prefers Macintosh computers. Guess its a lack of income thing...like so many liberals that are against tax cuts...hate the rich mentality.

[Ol' Dan Tucker]

...You can take a standard VGA monitor and plug it into an iMac. So screw off the LCD and plug in the VGA monitor in the closet and go back to work.

By standard VGA monitor, do you mean a "Video Graphics Array" monitor? Wasn't this standard created by, gasp!, the enemy, IBM, the creator of the PC?

I'm just yankin' your chain.

Personally, I think this whole Mac vs. PC thing is no different than a Ford vs. Chevy argument. And is about as mature.

FRegards,

dan

[Ol' Dan Tucker]

...I still don't understand why so many conservatives think that Rush Limbaugh is a cross dressing faggot because he prefers Macintosh systems.

There's an exception to every rule.

Actually, he's said on numerous occasions that he knows that Steve Jobs is an enthusistic supporter of the DemocRATs and that he doesn't care. He still likes his Macintosh.

dan

[Fraulein]

ROTFLMAO!

That cartoon is hilarious! The gray tabby looks like my cat, who just happens to be "roasting" right now!

My cat and I have surfed FreeRepublic together many times, but only now has he found an issue that he really seems to care about: "Tabbies For Tubes!"

[toupsie]

Actually, he's said on numerous occasions that he knows that Steve Jobs is an enthusistic supporter of the DemocRATs and that he doesn't care. He still likes his Macintosh.

I dont use a computer because of politics, I use it for politics. :)

[peabers]

Also, one more prediction. The desktop unit on ALL brands will slowly die out.

Never. Bang for buck, notebooks are too expensive.

[spodefly]

I had issues with the Mac and NT4 as well ... had to have 'Dave' on the Mac, and configuration was a pain ... since moving the main server to Win2K, all is well ... I even have a $80 HP Printer hooked up to the Win2K box thru USB, and the Mac see's it just fine thru AppleTalk.

I still find plenty of uses for the Mac (it is a Pro Tools machine primarily, but I also use it to scan from a 5370c). It has OSX, 9.2, and 9.1.1 (for the Pro Tools) as well as an Atto SCSI card and external Seagate Barracudas (18G, RAID_0) in a Glyph Rack with a Plextor CD-R ...

All that said, I spend way more time on the Windows boxes (sounds like you are I are in the same line of work) and its hard to get passionate about one over the other ... I like them all, and the distinctions are part of the fun ... I take my fun where I find it these days ... :)

[js1138]

but for its activities in forcing x86 manufacturers to buy licenses for Windows.

I've never figured out how Microsoft forced companies to buy their products. Did they use a gun? Or did they say "If you want this level of discount, you have to purchase this package of licenses"?

[toupsie]

I've never figured out how Microsoft forced companies to buy their products. Did they use a gun? Or did they say "If you want this level of discount, you have to purchase this package of licenses"?

Practically. What Microsoft did was to tell x86 manufacturers that they must buy a Windows license for every x86 machine they built even those that were not meant to have an OS when shipped. Also these contracts prevented the manufacturers from making "Dual Boot" machines. So if Compaq wanted to make a BeOS machine, they still would have to buy a Windows license from Microsoft. If they didn't, Microsoft would yank the all the licenses from Compaq. This what anti-Windows folks called the "Microsoft Tax".

[js1138]

But the question is, how did they enforce it? The only way I can imagine is that it was a requirement to get the deep discounts on Windows OS.

Let's say the retail price of Windows is $200 and the normal wholesale is $100. So if I offer it to you at $20 a pop, provided you by a licence for every machine you build, is this a loaded gun?

Lots of small OEMs get buy without the deep discount.

[Timesink]

As is usual with people who are given equipment to rave about, this person has neglected what matters to the real people in the real world:

Toupsie already answered your questions about price and expansion, but I wanted to make a different point: You, and a lot of other people who have such trouble with iMacs are forgetting that most people aren't power users, and are not the same "real people in the real world" that you are. The average PC purchaser - of any platform - will never "expand" their computer beyond adding some better speakers and maybe a scanner. They'll probably never even open the box, except to add some RAM. (And at least half of those people will take their machines to a dealer just for that.)

I've seen incredibly detailed attacks on the new iMac in a number of places on the web, always going into great detail about the technical aspects of the machine: about how far behind the G4 processor has fallen compared with Intel and AMD; the not exactly state-of-the-art display chip, the slower RAM, etc. And they're all absolutely correct about those facts. However, they're all missing the point: If the machine does what it puports to do, in a way that pleases the purchaser, then they will be happy. My parents have what is, at this point, a truly ancient original Bondi iMac. Well, okay, it's a Revision B, but the only difference between it and the true Model T iMac is 2MB of extra VRAM. It only has 96MB of RAM, and a 4GB hard drive. And they are as happy with it today as they were they day they bought it. It does what they want - web surfing, word processing, printing, a little Photoshop stuff (my mother's an amateur photographer) - and it does it well. They have never opened the case. They have never expanded. And they never will. In fact, the only reason they're even considering an upgrade (and they're thinking 6 months to a year down the line) is because my mother wants to change the wallpaper in the room and thinks the greenish-blue iMac will clash with it! (Well, okay, I admit, she's getting a little hungry for a Firewire port too.)

Also see James Lileks's two weblog posts (1) (2) on his extremely positive experiences with his iMac. He is the quintessential "real person in the real world" when it comes to the who the average computer consumer is today. He is who Apple is aiming their iMacs at. And he is completely satisfied.

And in the end, that is ALL that really matters. That is why Apple already has a record number of orders for their new iMacs, even more than they did for the originals. You can crow until the end of time about the technical superiority of Intel-based PCs (and I use "technical" in both senses of the word here), and you will often be correct (less so when we talk about standard Power Mac G4s instead of the consumer-oriented iMacs). And it just won't matter one bit.

(For the record, I have and use both Macs and Windows machines, and have plenty of positive and negative feelings about both.)

[Timesink]

But the question is, how did they enforce it? The only way I can imagine is that it was a requirement to get the deep discounts on Windows OS.

They simply threatened to stop selling Windows to those OEMs at all. You're not going to sell many PCs if you can't sell them with Windows preloaded. This was especially true pre-XP when Windows needed to be severely tweaked for each individual configuration of parts that made up a given PC model. Very few consumers have the skills to perform these tweaks properly even if they wanted to.

These threats all went on deep behind the scenes, of course.