# The Macintosh Is Dead



## hexstar (Feb 11, 2007)

Kind of a dark article that in some ways is true... 



			
				http://lowendmac.com/thomas/07/0119.html said:
			
		

> The Macintosh Is Dead
> 
> Tommy Thomas - 2007.01.19
> 
> ...


----------



## Lt Major Burns (Feb 11, 2007)

They did change it.  you haven't been able to buy a Macintosh since 1999.

the computers apple sell now are all called 'Mac'

Brands take years to become what they are, unless something miraculous happens.  you should never kill a popular brand unless you have to.


----------



## eric2006 (Feb 11, 2007)

They have their opinions, you could argue that the Mac/intosh has changed over time, but I read less articles from LEM after they had a few about the author's beloved Thinkpad..


----------



## fryke (Feb 11, 2007)

The author makes a few mistakes. Some I can't leave uncommented. _"In 1998, the Mac underwent even more PC-fication when the iMac was introduced. The floppy drive, gone. ADB, gone. Modem and printer ports, gone. SCSI ports, gone."_ - The whole article has a focus-mistake. While praising additions like ADB and SCSI (quite certainly no features of the one and only original Mac), other changes are seen as "bad" or even "evil" as in this case, where it's dubbed "PC-fication". This particular passage is so wrong that I'd actually like to yell my answer into the left ear of the author. Physically, I mean. My answer is this: Removing the floppy-drive and replacing modem-/printer-/SCSI- etc. ports with USB (and adding FireWire later on) was a (r)evolutionary step not reproduced my many PC-makers until today! They _still_ sport PS/2 ports and parallel ports and serial ports, however unnecessary these are today! If _anything_, the big step the iMac was and the big forthcoming steps it rang a bell for, is what the Mac is all _about_. If you listen to Steve Wozniak (and there are quite a few interviews and documentary footage to be found on the 'net), you'll hear that one of his best qualities was to take a given design, build the same features with less material and later find out that some features his new design had weren't actually in the original. It's all about reducing complexity in setup and evolving the featureset at the same time.

The guy should buy a Mac Classic, install System 6.0.8 along with Brickles and shut up. Or, something he and I might prefer: Revisit his writing, critically analyze it, see how wrong he is and remove the article or write a rebuttal on his own.

Grrrr.


----------



## symphonix (Feb 11, 2007)

TommyThomas said:
			
		

> From this day forward, I've made a decision. I'm dropping any reference to Macintosh or the Mac when referring to today's Apple computers...



I give Tommy one week before he accidentally uses the word "Mac" or "Macintosh" in one of his articles to describe a current model Apple computer.

And while the Mac has changed a great deal, I'd hardly believe the Mac's brand identity is tied to a hardware architecture, a type of connection socket, an Apple menu, a smiling mac logo at the startup screen, or a power key on the keyboard. All of these things are just elements, just transitory little milestones in the Mac's evolution.


----------



## Mikuro (Feb 11, 2007)

I agree with his main point. I've been saying it since OS X came out. "It's not the Macintosh; it's OS X."

I don't agree with most of his hardware points. IDE, yes &#8212; SCSI was superior. It's a shame Apple went with the heard on that one (but maybe they had to). I think the same is true of NuBus (but I wasn't such a geek back then, so I could be wrong). But USB? _Hell_ no. USB was just what the doctor ordered. It was the best technology at the time, and while it was created by Intel, it wasn't really a "PC" thing. It was the iMac that really catapulted it into prominence in the first place. And dropping floppies was a very un-PC thing!

If you ask me, the original iMac was what the Macintosh was all about. I have more than my share of gripes with Apple, but the CRT iMac just ain't one of them.

I am a little bummed by the marginalization of FireWire, however.

On the software side, I think he's right. OS X lacks both consistency and charm. *sigh*


----------



## Timotheos (Feb 12, 2007)

Argh, this is a rather annoying article.

For all the author knows, apple could be putting all those iPod profits away and investing them into creating their own CPU's , Hard drives and 'state of the art' hardware of the future.

I think OSX needs to be sharpened up but come on, we are using a OS thats 5 years ahead of its time. How much more innovation do you need?

200 patients on their latest hardware (iPhone). Hardware innovation anyone?

If apples mac hardware is no different than all the other PC's out there, then why dont they all look as good as a MACINTOSH?

gar!


----------



## limike28 (Feb 12, 2007)

This is one of those dumb articles that makes a bad case trying to point out the obvious.   The Mac of today is not the Mac of 20 years ago.  but I don't think it's less Mac.  

In the someways the Mac of today is more Mac than ever before.  An easy to use and understand machine.  A machine that is affordable. (relatively of course).   

As was pointed out before the iMac led the industry in getting rid of legacy ports.  And why would I want a different port?  Between firewire and USB all things are covered.  

Got to love fluff writing.


----------



## rubaiyat (Feb 15, 2007)

Come on guys step back and see the forest.

The Mac if not gone, is just a ghost fading into the scenery. 

A lot of the changes Apple made with OSX were not only pointless but counter productive and spiteful. 

At the heart of the matter is that they killed the intuitivity and rules for user-centric design. Everytime I hunt for a hidden function in OSX or an iLife app or get snared on yet another inconsistency I curse my screen and scream, "Hey, haven't you guys ever used a Mac before?"

The Dock is a very pretty absurdity no more no less.

Steps like bringing out computers, the original iMacs and G4s, with no means of saving or backing up to extractable media other than on another computer which is better equipped, beggars belief.

This is where Macfans get jeered at by PC users who recognise the same frivilous showy design ethic as "Designer" shops full of flashy letter openers and business card holders. Style over substance, where the Mac once had both.

Currently the Mac is being neglected yet again whilst Steve chases another "revolutionary" product, the iPhone and Apple TV, neither of which are in fact that revolutionary, functional or *available*.

Revolutionary would be Apple putting the polish back into OSX and its iLife products that once were in MacOS and the software built for it. I'm not holding my breath though, I think Apple has progressively lost interest in the product line that now makes up less than half of its income stream.

To sum it up when Apple turned to OSX it also turned to the "Springfield monorail", the cliched "future" from the past. It is still the unfriendly OS under the "friendly" coat of paint. It didn't help that the NEXT paperhangers didn't have their hearts in the redecoration job.


----------



## Ferdinand (Feb 16, 2007)

rubaiyat said:


> Currently the Mac is being neglected yet again whilst Steve chases another "revolutionary" product, the iPhone and Apple TV, neither of which are in fact that revolutionary, functional or *available*.



He has a point there you know. The iPhone and Apple TV arent available yet - so actually the only product that _is_ available is the new AirPort. Other than that nothing is out yet.


----------



## fryke (Feb 16, 2007)

Then again, you don't _really_ believe the Mac's being neglected for, say, the whole year, right?


----------



## rubaiyat (Feb 16, 2007)

We are only just into February, of course the Mac isn't going to get neglected for the whole year, but that is still to me a lot of delays and missed opportunities.

Rumors suggest the MacPro will get a significant chip upgrade soon, which it needs. It wasn't that significant an upgrade to go from the Quad G5 to the Intel Mac Pro and I have heard a lot of people complaining about stability problems on the Intel machines.

My son and I are really hanging out for an iMac 24" upgrade along with Leopard and iLife 07. A bit of spit and polish, bug fixes and straightened GUI would go a long way to improve the attractiveness of Macs all round. Not to mention the rumored iWork spreadsheet and Mail/calendar servers.


----------



## fryke (Feb 16, 2007)

Okay, but then we're off-topic now.  I agree, though, that they should _finally_ start to update their hardware more often. It's mainly the Mac Pro and the MacBook Pro I'm talking about here, although the other stuff could easily get more frequent updates as well. I've said it a lot in the past: When intel releases a small new step for a processor line, Apple should _simply_ add it to the respective lines. Immediately. They could _keep_ the old products at lower prices, but they _should_ always immediately add the newest processors. If that needs an architectural change, they should be ready with new models when the processors arrive. It's their job, in my opinion.


----------



## rubaiyat (Feb 17, 2007)

Agreed.

Now that Apple has transitioned to Intel chips, it could move to standardised form factors, like PCs, even if they adopt their own improved versions. That would allow them to sensibly do what you have suggested.

It might let them concentrate better on service access. The on-again-off-again improved accessibility is extremely irritating when you have to service multiple machines like I do. I try to keep all the online manuals and guides I can but Apple screws this up by having bizarre, inconsistent and multiple naming for models. I am hardly ever certain I am dealing with the same model as the written material.

I am no doubt telling Apple how to suck eggs but I'd chart out all the points they can gain a competitive edge:

1. Easy access

2. Standardisation of parts and fixings

3. Interoperability

4. Standardisation of form factors (The Apple TV for example is a different size to nearly all Hi-Fi components and is oddly different to the Mac mini)

5. Consider how peripherals bought at different times fit together in size, style and finish. The vaunted superior Apple style mostly ends up looking like a Chinese laundry basket

6. Use flat tops on everything. Sitting external drives on top of G4/G5/MacPros is awkward at best. The slight curvature in surfaces and the handles get in the way.

7. The Mac desktop and iLife software GUI need to be kept consistent over time. Currently there are too many finishes and implementations. Access to interface elements is in odd places or via concealed keyboard commands which are accidentally triggered, leaving the user chasing the problem and method of correcting it.

Basically consistency, functionality and streamlining are the ways to boost OSX productivity. Higher productivity with good quality training material are strong selling points, achieved for little expenditure.


----------



## ApeintheShell (Feb 23, 2007)

The writer's of the articles at Low End Mac have lost it recently. I remember reading the "It's time to let go of the old and embrace the new Mac" a couple months ago. Now the Macintosh is declared dead by another writer. These are mixed signals and cannot be good for the people who are looking for a bargain on a iMac Core Duo or a Macbook. If anything it is promoting buying an older Macintosh that will not be able to handle the same applications and games people buy today. Anything that is Pre-G3 will simply not do it for most customers.

I think the writer is complaining about things that had to change. He also doesn't think about those qualities that define the Mac. The one button mouse, the all in one computer, embrace the standards and create new ones, and it is the only computer where the company makes the operating system with the hardware.

People have always complained about the Mac's one button mouse. Then people thought the iMac was getting old and we needed a Mini-Tower for upgrades. Now people have a theory that Apple is going to switch to Windows and dump the Mac OS. These kind of people make the Macintosh dead. It is actually quite lively.


----------



## Captain Code (Feb 25, 2007)

IMO most of his points are wrong.  He seems to think that the Mac should just stay exactly the way it was back then.  If that happened, no one would be using Macs right now.  People are switching to Macs because of the way the OS is now, not how it was.  

I don't see why it matters what the internal hardware is.  The MBP I'm using right now is almost identical to my dad's Powerbook but much much faster and brighter screen.  Other than that and a few minor cosmetic differences it's the same Mac.  

There wasn't any reason to stay with SCSI.  It was way more expensive and still is.  Sure it was faster but for what most people do it's better to have a cheaper slightly slower drive than a screaming fast drive that costs 2 times as much.  If you really need SCSI you probably want to be using a Mac Pro anyways for the speed so you will have the option of SCSI drives there.

I think the non-standardized form factors are good for Apple and Macs.  When you see a Mac you instantly know it's a Mac.  When you see some other computer you most likely don't know what it is unless you see the logo.


----------



## Lt Major Burns (Feb 25, 2007)

what gets me is that all my experiences of <OS9 were not very fun.  like if you applied a particularly large filter in photoshop, the whole computer would die, taking down anything you had open in quark and illustrator with it, in a way the was so abrupt that steve would say, 'boom'.

for all of the nostalgia, co-operative multitasking was the worst thing, and as a result, i feel no nostalgia toward os9 at all.  may it rest in peace.


----------



## Mikuro (Feb 25, 2007)

Lt Major Burns said:


> what gets me is that all my experiences of <OS9 were not very fun.  like if you applied a particularly large filter in photoshop, the whole computer would die, taking down anything you had open in quark and illustrator with it, in a way the was so abrupt that steve would say, 'boom'.
> 
> for all of the nostalgia, co-operative multitasking was the worst thing, and as a result, i feel no nostalgia toward os9 at all.  may it rest in peace.



I think you're missing the point. Of course OS X is technologically superior to OS 9. Nobody's saying otherwise. Obviously, I use OS X. I could've bought a used G4 tower and used OS 9, but I didn't. OS X my platform of choice. Time marches on, and it's the best OS available.

However, I still think the Classic Mac OS was better _for its time_, and in the ways that matter most to me: style, consistency, usability. The technological side of things is big enough to make me use OS X instead  like you, I'd hate to give up preemptive multitasking  but it's a damn shame I need to make that compromise. Apple had something important in the classic Mac OS, and they lost it. Worse yet, they don't seem to care. _That's_ the point.

Lots of people these days know more about gravity than Isaac Newton. That doesn't make them smarter than he was. Different times call for different standards.


----------



## Ferdinand (Feb 25, 2007)

Captain Code said:


> I think the non-standardized form factors are good for Apple and Macs.  When you see a Mac you instantly know it's a Mac.  When you see some other computer you most likely don't know what it is unless you see the logo.



EXACTLY!!!!!! Thats wat makes the Mac different. You know its one from far away, because it looks so different compared to diff. computers. Eg., there is a shop in Vienna called "Made by You". They have pots, plates and everything. Then you can buy them and colour them. They have an iMac G4 at the reception and everyone is like: "Look, thats a Mac!"


----------



## Damrod (Feb 28, 2007)

I might be mistaking, but were points like "constant short term hardware upgrades" a long time argument for Macs? I mean, if Apple would update it's hardware line every three or four months, I guess people would feel kinda "betrayed", as it is almost always like "Darn, I just bought a new machine, and for the same buck I could have had a better revised machine". I think the update cycle is ok IMO.

The comments here that OS X is not a convinient OS to use is something I can no understand. I personally find it well designed and have next to no problems finidng features, functions etc. 

Regarding the article: the guy's an idiot.


----------



## fryke (Feb 28, 2007)

I personally _really_ wished Apple would update more often. Upgrading the hardware with "baby steps" every month or every second month would make the step much smaller than if you buy late in the one-year cycle just to see the hardware _seriously_ updated a week or two later. My point is: When *I* am ready to buy a new MacBook, Mac Pro or whatever, I want Apple to sell me the thing with the greatest components available at that given time.
Then again knowing a little more about Apple and its cycles helps avoiding to buy shortly before new models are introduced. At least most of the time.


----------



## Ferdinand (Feb 28, 2007)

But then how would it be possible to change in "baby steps" from the iMac G3 to G4, or from the G4 to the G5? First the G3 instead of the G4 display on top of the G4, then smaller, smaller, smaller and then the iMac G4? Then they make the "Hügel" at the bottom smaller, smaller and smaller till it's gone and start to put more stuff behind the screen as they make the Hügel smaller? I dont think that would work! If they wouldn't change the iMac IC2D now except for making the screen slimmer etc... then ok, but if they'll make a major update, as they did twice already with the iMacs, then it won't work. But I get your point Fryke!


----------



## Rhisiart (Feb 28, 2007)

Just because your neighbour is a sinner, doesn't make you a saint. Ergo, just because Windows is so cumbersome, doesn't make the Mac OS the perfect alternative (albeit we are only then left with Linux).

I applaud Apple for continuing to create a relatively intuitive OS, compared with Microsoft's piss-poor creation. However, that doesn't mean that any criticism of the Apple's product development is unjustified or unnecessary. A few salvos from enlightened observers might help keep Apple on its toes.

However, on this occasion the author of the said article doesn&#8217;t seem to have any real substantial recommendations to make to address what he sees as Apple&#8217;s shortcomings. Just a hollow rant really.


----------



## Lt Major Burns (Feb 28, 2007)

Ferdinand said:


> But then how would it be possible to change in "baby steps" from the iMac G3 to G4, or from the G4 to the G5? First the G3 instead of the G4 display on top of the G4, then smaller, smaller, smaller and then the iMac G4? Then they make the "Hügel" at the bottom smaller, smaller and smaller till it's gone and start to put more stuff behind the screen as they make the Hügel smaller? I dont think that would work! If they wouldn't change the iMac IC2D now except for making the screen slimmer etc... then ok, but if they'll make a major update, as they did twice already with the iMacs, then it won't work. But I get your point Fryke!



they could, for example, get rid of the 'chin', that unsightly huge chunk below the screen, and also, the bezels on iMacs are huge.  they're not the lightest things, either.  and i'd like to see them bring back convection cooling, iMacs get quite whiney after a bit.


----------



## Ferdinand (Mar 1, 2007)

How much does an iMac weigh now? They used to way 17kg., so now maybe 5kg, 7kg?


----------



## icemanjc (Apr 8, 2007)

I think you have more fun with macs that are 5 years and older, theres just something about using old systems and pushing the limits with new software, and taking them apart and rebuilding them that gives it the charm for me.


----------



## jbarwick (Apr 9, 2007)

There is one thing we can agree on, perhaps:

Referring to the Intel/Mac as "Mac" and also referring to the PowerPC/Mac as "Mac" is a little difficult when trying to find software.

But, that will change, eh?

As far as the hardware changes:  "Thank GOD!"  I can now afford a "Mac" which I could not afford before, and the hardware is B-E-A-utiful.  

Open my last 5 "PC's"...what a mess.  Open the "Mac", and enter Eden.

I personally believe a "Mac" is a "Mac" and not a "PC"...neither hardware, nor software.

"It just works"...my PC never did (except when brand new).


----------



## loyaltubist (May 3, 2007)

I think, if you get as nitpicky as this guy, you would say that a 2007 Buick isn't an automobile because it doesn't look or work like the cars Buick made 100 years ago!

By the way, when you come to Vietnam and ask about Macintosh computers, they will correct you on the pronunciation: Here it's...

Massintoss!


----------



## symphonix (May 3, 2007)

loyaltubist said:


> I think, if you get as nitpicky as this guy, you would say that a 2007 Buick isn't an automobile because it doesn't look or work like the cars Buick made 100 years ago!
> 
> By the way, when you come to Vietnam and ask about Macintosh computers, they will correct you on the pronunciation: Here it's...
> 
> Massintoss!



Actually, I think that is a perfect example of how language changes over time. Who uses the word "automobile" now? Or the 1950s equivalent "motorcar"? Our "saloons" have become "sedans" and our "estates" have become "wagons" (in most parts of the English speaking world, anyway). 

So when you hear somebody say "I travelled to the coast in my automobile" you'd be likely to get a mental image of someone in a 1920s car. The word hasn't changed in meaning, but because it hasn't been used in a long time, we tend to associate it with usage rather than definition.

So in that sense, maybe the word "Macintosh" is dying out. In 10 years time, when someone says "I have a Macintosh at home", will we be picturing the latest model off Apple's production line? I somehow doubt it.


----------



## Sparrowhawk (Jun 1, 2007)

To a degree, and probably for different reasons, I have to agree. To an ordinary user, the Mac's great advantage was a single machine integrating monitor with computer. But the eMac is now officially dead--fortunately I got one before it was discontinued. But Tiger has no significant advantage that is obvious except for Dashboard, which I rarely use, and Spotlight, which only works with Mac programs, not second party programs like Mariner Write. Esthetically, the old Mac All-in-One idea was wonderful: now we are stuck with laptops with limited lifespans (the battery is not generic, and when they stop making the battery, you're dead in the water) or huge tower systems. Small wonder no one wants Macs anymore--Apple is increasingly, it seems to me, depending on its iPod, a triviaity. Apple needs to resurrect the eMac approach again, and take hold of its birthright again.


----------



## MisterMe (Jun 2, 2007)

Sparrowhawk said:


> ... To an ordinary user, the Mac's great advantage was a single machine integrating monitor with computer. But the eMac is now officially dead--fortunately I got one before it was discontinued.


Huh? What's wrong with the iMac? Just because it has an LCD rather than CRT monitor doesn't mean that it is not a a single machine with an intergrated monitor.


Sparrowhawk said:


> ... Spotlight, which only works with Mac programs, not second party programs like Mariner Write.


What in God's name are you rambling on about? *Spotlight* also works with files. But, it is MacOS X facility on a Macintosh computer. What more do you demand of *Spotlight*?


Sparrowhawk said:


> Esthetically, the old Mac All-in-One idea was wonderful: now we are stuck with laptops with limited lifespans (the battery is not generic, and when they stop making the battery, you're dead in the water) or huge tower systems.


... and the iMac and the Mac mini. Why do you continue to deny the existence of the iMac? In fact, with its introduction of the 23" iMac, Apple seems to be pushing the iMac at the expense of the Mac Pro.


Sparrowhawk said:


> Small wonder no one wants Macs anymore--Apple is increasingly, it seems to me, depending on its iPod, a triviaity. Apple needs to resurrect the eMac approach again, and take hold of its birthright again.


Where on Earth of you getting your information? The Mac is _increasing_ its marketshare at the same time that Dell is suffering massive layoffs. You need to go back to bed and get up on the right side this time.


----------



## Mikuro (Jun 2, 2007)

Spotlight is actually quite flexible. There are third-party Spotlight plugins to read all sorts of other file formats, like zips, NeoOffice files and many others (see http://www.apple.com/downloads/macosx/spotlight/ ). The folks behind Mariner Write could make Spotlight work with their file formats. Spotlight is certainly not limited to Apple's programs or file formats.

Don't get me wrong, I'm no fan of Spotlight. I consider it a very good reason to stick with Panther (for reasons I will not go into here; search the forums if you care). But that particular problem is not Apple's fault.

As for the all-in-ones, the low-end iMac seems like a decent successor to the eMac. It's more expensive, which is unfortunate, but then the Mini also went up in price with the switch to Intel, so I guess that's just the way it is for now.


----------



## Sparrowhawk (Jun 2, 2007)

Gee, Mr. Me, we love you too. Thanks for your more reasoned response, Mikuro, I will look into it. Mr. M, some of us don't want a cinema screen, but prefer a working tool, not something we wrap our lives around.


----------



## Captain Code (Jun 2, 2007)

Maybe the Mac isn't the same as it once was but if it was the same then Apple would have truely been out of business a long time ago.  The overall packages is what makes it a Mac and I was cautious about how the transition to Intel hardware would affect the Mac but the thing is, it hasn't really affected what makes the Mac a Mac.  The hardware looks pretty much the same on the outside, the OS works exactly the same etc.  This MBP works the same way as my G4 tower except much faster.

If you want to complain it's not the same as OS 9, well that's a good thing.  OS 9 used to be much more unstable for me.  My IIci would freeze all the time running Netscape.  Now we are transitioned to a more modern(even though a lot of the tech is from the 50s) OS and you can see how well it's helped Apple.  Imagine if we were still using some derivative of OS 9.  There would still be the Apple loyalists that would use the systems, if Apple even still existed, but the huge growth rate we're currently seeing wouldn't be happening.  Currently Mac sales are growing 3-5 times faster than the industry average.  i.e. industry growth rate is X, Mac growth rate is 3X-5X, 3X world wide, 5X in the US.

P.S.  writing a Spotlight plugin is trivial, so if the application doesn't support it then complain to the authors.


----------



## Sparrowhawk (Jun 2, 2007)

Thank for the Spotlight link, Mikuro. The plug in worked like a charm. (I accidentally thanked someone else, but I'm sure he would have provided the link if he knew/thought of it. BTW, does anyone remember when Apple sued E-Machines when they tried to integrate a CRT with their computer? Apple at the time thought the concept was important enough to protect THEN.


----------



## MisterMe (Jun 2, 2007)

Sparrowhawk said:


> ... BTW, does anyone remember when Apple sued E-Machines when they tried to integrate a CRT with their computer? Apple at the time thought the concept was important enough to protect THEN.


The main issue in the suit was not the fact that the E-Machines all-in-one had a CRT. Apple sued E-Machines because it sold a computer that looked like an iMac/eMac of that era. If any computer company produced a computer which looked like today's iMac, then Apple Legal would get busy in a hurry.


----------



## Sparrowhawk (Jun 2, 2007)

I suppose I should make my point clearer, with my apologies. Some of us do not like LCDs. They fade out unless you are looking straight on at them, and environmentally they seem to use up more mercury than other screens. And amazingly, there still doesn't seem to be a comprehensive recycle program for computers. (Not Apple's fault, although they have scored very low on this front as we know.) And, purely a personal aesthetic note, the eMac is a much more attractive machine. Why? Can't account for personal taste, but it has a rather organic look to it that the flat screen. For that matter, so did the original Macintosh.
On an entirely different matter which I invite everyone to offer their opinions: will Apple continue the use of CDs/DVDs for data storage, or will there be a switch to HD or BluRay disks? Can a standard Mac use this still new form of data storage?--or will we have to buy new machines to keep up? Does anyone remember the book and phrase, "Future Shock"?


----------



## Lt Major Burns (Jun 3, 2007)

LCD's may use traces of mercury, but apple is starting to transition to mercury-free lcd by the end of 2008.  CRT's on the other hand, have a whacking great lump of _lead_ in them!  CRT's are hateful to the environment.  CRT's also fade, and blur over time, and a 4 year old CRT can be nearly useless.

as for the viewing angles,  that's utter rubbish.  maybe 6 years ago, but certainly not now.  the picture on my 20" acd is as colour perfect at a 10 degree angle as it is straight on.


----------

