Esthetically anal or what?

iSpyzz · Dec 20th, 2004, 10:23 PM

My thread about the drive has brought up something that a buddy said to me, he say's I'm obsessed with the appearance and 'coolness' as he puts it rather than how it works. Well that's not the case at all, sh$t has to work properly as well as look good I think. As a design engineer I guess I'm a little picky as far as how things look, which brings me to my question.

How 'anal' are fellow ehmac members about the appearance and coolness of their Macs?

MacDoc · Dec 20th, 2004, 10:45 PM

Function first for me. I ran a bare case ( no plastic) G3 tower for a while - loved it - totally accessible.

One reason I hate Apple's current keyboards and love Microsoft's ugly but perfectly functional and very ergonomically sound keyboards. My wrist rest is polished like silk.

That said the current G5 is both gorgeous and functional. Interior dressed to the nines.

ArtistSeries · Dec 20th, 2004, 11:39 PM

The computer is just a machine. Yes there is some "beauty" to it bottom line is that it has to get the job done.
Have a bunch of G-RAID because they look good but also function well.
We are in "design" so customers to expect a "look" so we try and stay in those guidelines, it's easy when Mac and Antec casings look good...

thewitt · Dec 21st, 2004, 02:17 PM

Kind of a funny question...

I am anal about things looking nice/new/cool, but I find with most things I buy (especially Apple products) that the 'good' ones just DO look cool. No need to be 'anal' about it. But I certainly don't buy things because they look good, I buy what does the job.

I am also very organized. A place for everything and everything in it's place. Luckily, OS X is the same way. The only gripe I would have is my Applications folder. Why doesn't Software Updater see that I have iTunes in a sub-folder called "Audio" and Quicktime in a sub-folder called "Video"? Cummon Apple, I don't want 123 applications in the same folder.

RC51Pilot · Dec 21st, 2004, 03:22 PM

Well, my wife thinks I've gone a bit nuts having to have everything on my desk be white and "Apple"esque to match my iMac, but really I'm usually function over form first. I've since ditched the Apple mouse and the keyboard is next to go once I get a good USB one.

Similar to MacDoc, my PC currently is just a chassis running headless with nothing more than a little green LED on the front to tell me it's on. I keep it hidden in the CPU cupboard so it's not such an eyesore though

andreww · Dec 21st, 2004, 03:37 PM

Its funny, in my office the PCs are hidden away under desks, the Macs are displayed proudly!

BRN · Dec 21st, 2004, 03:40 PM

When I got my iMac, everything had to be tangerine. Now with my eMac and iPod everything is slowly changing white.
Hardest part is finding a new desk.

Lawrence · Dec 21st, 2004, 03:59 PM

Looky Looky...
Staple's is now advertizing work station desks with a Mac in it.
They don't even sell Mac's, Yet they are willing to show them.

Dave

Peter Scharman · Dec 21st, 2004, 04:03 PM

That's a classy looking work station!

gordguide · Dec 21st, 2004, 04:05 PM

Form follows function.

I like the way most Macs look, but that wouldn't get me to buy one.

Software is different; it has to be useable and part of that is being able to stare at the thing. A GUI is a metaphor for a workspace and often an insturment, so it has to be functional. Clutter and gaudy colours are not functional.

I don't think a good-looking anything is a bad thing; I don't see any problem with an effort to create good design. It's reflective of how much thought went into a product.

Good design is generally simple rather than complex, and that's where the value of paying attention lies. "Pretty for pretty's sake" is shallow and inherently dishonest; it's a poor substitute for functionality if there is no functionality underneath it all.

If Macs were all about a pretty box, no Mac user I know would bother. It's what's inside that counts. If you get part one right, it's OK to work on part two if you're so inclined.