toggle

AAPL Stock: 565.32 ( 0 )

MacNN News

BW: Apple's new iMac offers 'skin-deep' beauty

updated 08:55 am EDT, Wed September 1, 2004

iMac: \'Skin-deep\' beauty

Apple's new iMac G5 desktop is "easy on the eyes, but if you want sweeping innovation, or even adequate memory, it falls short," according to BusinessWeek's Alex Salkever: "However, the new . NPD analyst Steven Baker cut to the chase by pointing out that it's a slick and well-executed compendium of existing design ideas. 'If you are a Mac person or are looking for some kind of cutting-edge product, you are not getting that,' says Baker. 'You are getting a basic product with elements that we have seen in lots of other products.' Baker believes the new iMacs are aimed at Windows users who have been wowed by iPods and are now contemplating entering the Mac kingdom."

by MacNN Staff

(29)

TAGS :

Apple

Share the Article

Facebook Twitter Delious Slash Dot Digg

toggle

Comments

Nitride
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Sep 2001

0

09/01, 09:05am | report spam | close Reply |
Copycats

Okay since the iMac is nothing special I expect to see DELL or GateMachines make a PeeCee that fits entirely into a flat panel display with built-in WiFi-G, BlueTooth, speakers, DVD-R/W, FireWire and SATA disks and is 2" or less thick. And with no external power brick. And costs less than $1500 *without* any instant rebates.

BTW, I won't be holding my breath.

You_EEEeeediot
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: May 2004

0

09/01, 09:21am | report spam | close Reply |
IBM Netvista X-series

This was done 3 years ago, I should know since we still have some in use. If DVD-R/W was available back then it would have had it, and they have two (yes 2) cPCI slots for expansion. Mind you the cost was about $2100.00 per unit, but think about how expensive LCD technology was 3 years ago.

Apple has not produced something "revolutionary" in the new iMAC, and I would see no reason to upgrade our G4 iMACs... which IMHO are much better looking systems.

Now, if Apple would only bring back the G4 cube and throw a G5 into it... THAT would sell!

testudo
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Aug 2001

0

09/01, 09:33am | report spam | close Reply |
Cube

Now, if Apple would only bring back the G4 cube and throw a G5 into it... THAT would sell!

Well, it would sell, assuming Apple didn't over-price the thing. If they followed the cube's example, they'd throw a G5 in there and then charge $2000+ for it.

csimon2
Junior Member

Joined: Aug 2000

0

09/01, 09:50am | report spam | close Reply |
target audience

"the new iMacs are aimed at Windows users who have been wowed by iPods and are now contemplating entering the Mac kingdom."

Duh. Where'd he make that assumption, could it be possibly from the fact that Apple is advertising it "From the makers of iPod"? Look, the design of the iMac G4 may have been more appealing, but the new iMac has shown that for the average PC user, design means squat. They want power, and the new iMac to a degree delivers, without being overly designed and beautiful.

I still can't understand why they only have 256MB RAM and a nVidia 5200 in the top end 20" model though. All that model would need is 512MB standard and a Radeon 9600 128MB, and it would sell like hotcakes. Then again, it would probably sell TOO well, outpacing the low-end G5 towers. And if anyone hasn't noticed, Apple is no longer selling a sub $1000 or ADC equiped monitor.

purpleshorts
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Sep 2004

0

09/01, 09:54am | report spam | close Reply |
Memory

I read the article. The main gripe is that the iMac G5 doesn't include 1 gigabyte of RAM, which the author says is the norm these days. This lack of RAM is later translated as a lack of "sweeping innovation." [Insert broom remark here.]

Upon reflection, I, too, thought that my iMac should have more RAM, and include the bluetooth and airport cards. So I just configured it that way at the Apple store. Now, I may not have the most sweepingly innovative Mac on the planet, but I've got a virus-safe, iApp running, modern OS, wonderful machine for a very good price.

Cadaver
Addicted to MacNN

Joined: Jan 2003

0

09/01, 09:59am | report spam | close Reply |
What do they want?

What kind of amazing new technology do these tech reporters want? I mean, really, what's new in home computing these days?
They want more memory? Just add it for crying out loud. Its got twice the HD space of most entry and mid-level Dells & Gateways (which usually are outfitted with a 40GB 5200 RPM HD). Built-in speakers, optical digital audio out for connection to a 5.1 surround system (show me a basic entry Gateway with that).
Honestly... they say that the new iMac isn't revolutionary enough. OK... what should it have??? I just can't see what the iMac is missing.

Alexei
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Aug 2001

0

09/01, 10:05am | report spam | close Reply |
Sell too well?

The machine is great, but yeah, the RAM and the video card...
And no expansion...
Upgrade it and if it sells too well, then upgrade your Pro line. Why hobble something with potential just to help your weaker sibling when you can upgrade that as well for no money at all? Is it going to kill Apple to have Radeon 9600 128Mb and 512 Mb RAM? I don�t think so. Sometimes you gotta sacrifice your fat 30% margin for just as fat 25% in order to stay alive.

My 2 cents.

Deal
Mac Enthusiast

Joined: Apr 2001

0

09/01, 10:10am | report spam | close Reply |
Exactly!

When I read that I thought to myself, "WHAT, Isn't 2GB of RAM enough?"

Stupid people. I think they suffer from the inability to compliment something without somehow putting it down. Maybe they're afraid of another reporter claiming something they didn't. Sad.

BTW, who made that all in one system? Gateway? Give me a break. That sure was a successful campaign wasn't it? Talk about ugly big and slow all rolled up into one.

Now if you want to talk about the first flat panel all in one, you go back to the special 2000 Mac. It was a flat panel all in one Mac. It was really expensive, then came down in price later (much to the displeasure of every addict that bought it for $10,000). But I will have to add, Apple still did it first!

3dAnimation
Dedicated MacNNer

Joined: Jun 2000

0

09/01, 10:16am | report spam | close Reply |
Price / Performance ROCKS

Hmm..... 64 bit processor / Serial ATA HD / Optical Audio Out for 5.1 / AND a beautiful 17" LCD for $1299?!

Yeah, I'd like to see a PeeCee do that.
Even if it came close - YOUR STILL RUNNING WINDOWS!

-3d

Talleyman
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Jun 2002

0

09/01, 10:26am | report spam | close Reply |
PC switchers only?

I am a Mac user since my good old SE30 and I am now torn between $2300 for a G5 tower (w/ no monitor) and a $2100 20" iMac w/G5 and not much (read no) expansion.

My family would love this computer...and I could get rid of my really crappy CRT forever!

BTW...If the average person can't afford your monitors that match your towers, perhaps that hurts your tower sales. My 2 cents.

tman

ecrelin
Junior Member

Joined: Oct 2000

0

09/01, 10:31am | report spam | close Reply |
retro harp

Sorry, I've been commenting on all these articles and 512 minimum (read ONE chip in ONE slot so no penalty on upgrade) is the only acceptable minimum config. Anyone who has run OS X on a box without 512 knows what I mean. Their OEM price per chip is less than you think and they could just add that to the price. Every component doesn't need to be marked up and $1339. doesn't sound any worse than $1299. to me. I want bluetooth and airport built in, it is 2004. Oh and I've wanted a two button mouse since OS 8.5 when it was built in.
I'll still buy one though�

dlindsay17
Forum Regular

Joined: Dec 1999

0

09/01, 10:34am | report spam | close Reply |
eating words

this guy, like many other critics in the past will be eating his words in about 4 weeks. gotta publish something!

slider
Mac Elite

Joined: Oct 1999

0

09/01, 10:37am | report spam | close Reply |
Was it suppose to be

cutting edge? Doesn't the fact that this is a 64-bit computer count for something? this is a consumer level machine for pete sake. If he (BW author) was talking about the G5 towers, well, then, yeah. I don't think Apple missed the mark here, I think this BW missed the point of the iMac. I think it's a fantastic looking machine in it's simplicity. I am really looking forward to some user reviews in the forums. BW, blah.

Gunner1954
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Mar 2000

0

09/01, 10:50am | report spam | close Reply |
Time for the MiniMac

MiniMac (as in Minimalist) will be a flat box with rounded corners with dimensions of 16 inch wide by 9 inch depth by 2.5 inch thickness. It will contain a single, bottom-of-the-line G5 processor (the ones IBM can pump out the fastest, but slower than iMac). Power cord, on/off switch and ports on back for FW800, USB2, 10/100 Ethernet, optional (snap-in) modem, analog speaker out and microphone in. Front will have slots for Combo Drive and Combo Media Reader as well as ports for FW400 and USB2. Sell the box with OS X and iLife on CD for $200, with no keyboard, no mouse, no monitor, no video card, no hard drive, no RAM and no warranty (maybe 90-days). Options for internal Bluetooth and WiFi short variety of video cards, including DVI and HDTV, various RAM option, SATA Hard Drive capacities, and 1, 2 and 3-year warranties. Sell only from Apple Store on-line as BTO, plus allow BTO at Apple Authorized Resellers (not Apple Stores). This is the hobbyist Mac, the network Mac, the iCheap Mac, the low-cost option. Can pretty much use the same logic board as in the new iMac.

One can dream, can't one?

Gunner1954
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Mar 2000

0

09/01, 11:14am | report spam | close Reply |
Salkever misses mark.

Granted, 256MB RAM is the base level to actually run Panther, but it is more than sufficient to surf the web, do email, play with iTunes or synk your iPod. If you want photo manipulating or movie making speed, then you buy more RAM, and 2GB is overkill for iMovie (but nice to have) -- just wait for the 2GB and 4GB sticks to arrive. The OS should handle it nicely -- a 64-bit addressing OS running on a 64-bit processor, today, not in some long(horn) away tomorrow, in a CONSUMER level (not pricey Pro-level) machine!
Has Salkever ever liked any out-of-the-box, consumer level machine? Or any all-in-one for that matter? From everything I ever read from him, if he can't build it himself, then it just ain't good enough!

MacnTX
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Apr 2004

0

09/01, 11:54am | report spam | close Reply |
Marketed To Consumers

Most consumers don't need all of these pro features that have been left out (tons of RAM, ultra high end video, etc). Plus, if you can afford $1,299 for the new iMac, you can certainly afford the $50 to add an extra 256MB of RAM if you really need it! It supports up to 2GB anyway so I don't see what the problem is. Where are the $1,299 PCs out there with 17" widescreen LCDs and 1GB of RAM standard? Yeah right, there aren't any of them! Some people just have to always find something to b*tch about.

hayesk
Professional Poster

Joined: Sep 1999

0

09/01, 12:02pm | report spam | close Reply |
RAM config etc.

A budget PC often has 128 MB standard, no firewire, comes in a cheap big clunky plastic case, crappy Intel on board video, and people b**** at Apple?!?

Oh please. If you want a piece of c***, go buy a PC then.

Hemingray
Forum Regular

Joined: Nov 2001

0

09/01, 12:08pm | report spam | close Reply |
Yawn.

Some people are simply never satisfied. Next?

edtekker
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Mar 2003

0

09/01, 12:16pm | report spam | close Reply |
Go back a couple years

The analysts' comments sound suspiciously familiar. Hmmm.

Oh, yeah, here we are. They're the same comments that they wrote about the each release of the iPod.

klinux
Senior User

Joined: Jul 2002

0

09/01, 03:05pm | report spam | close Reply |
BS

Hey edtekker - no need to be such a zealot.

For your information, MOST analysts offer favorable views with each release of iPod.

Unlike you popele who are emotionally tied to anything Apple releases and lavish praises on anything and everything Apple, analysts are tied to money. Money talks. iPod makes money. Therefore, iPod = good = favorable comments.

Furthermore, some Mac users also prodicted failures with each release of the iPods too. I don't see you attacking them.

Lastly, to analysts, iMac make no money. iMac = bad = unfavorable. Simple as that.

testudo
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Aug 2001

0

09/01, 03:17pm | report spam | close Reply |
Consumer machine

Doesn't the fact that this is a 64-bit computer count for something? this is a consumer level machine for pete sake.

64-bit counts for NOTHING! Why? Because it is a consumer machine. Consumer machines don't need to be 64-bits, as they'll never push it to that extent (and, taking into account that this thing only supports 32-bits of memory (2GB), a 64-bit chip ain't very helpful).

Most consumers don't need all of these pro features that have been left out (tons of RAM, ultra high end video, etc). Plus, if you can afford $1,299 for the new iMac, you can certainly afford the $50 to add an extra 256MB of RAM if you really need it!

Great, no problem, except doing more than one thing at a time and OS X will start slowing down without 512. And the point is, this is for the consumer who doesn't crack his machine, so they'll be stuck with 256 or overpay CompUSA to install it for them.

Second, people aren't wanting a super ultra high-end video card. I'd personally like it if they used something that wasn't last years model to begin with. Which wouldn't be as much of a problem if the high-end geeks could replace it in the future. But you can't. So, you buy it, you're stuck with it.

Apple claims this is easy to open. That's great. But what's the point? So you can stick in an extra ram chip. They could've done that through a plate like the original iMacs. That and the harddrive. Ooh. Easy to open would mean more to me if there were room for more hard-drives, a PCI slot of some type, and I could change the video card. As it is, its an easy to open machine with no reason to open it (as opposed to the old 9500s, which had every reason to be opened on many occasions, and that was done at your own risk).

Finally, remember that the GPU is used to offload the UI. The better the GPU, the better the UI will work. Did it ever occur to you that some of those spinning beachballs people see are due slow graphics? Waiting for a window to open or waiting for it to be drawn. Either way, your waiting...

testudo
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Aug 2001

0

09/01, 03:25pm | report spam | close Reply |
Re: BS

For your information, MOST analysts offer favorable views with each release of iPod.

Unlike you popele who are emotionally tied to anything Apple releases and lavish praises on anything and everything Apple, analysts are tied to money. Money talks. iPod makes money. Therefore, iPod = good = favorable comments.

Furthermore, some Mac users also prodicted failures with each release of the iPods too. I don't see you attacking them.

Actually, IIRC, MOST apple lovers seemed to be tolling the death knell on the iPod before it was released. "Too expensive", I believe the words on these boards said. Probably threw some "No color, no go" or "what do you mean it can't record" or "No FM? WTF!" or just "You can get more features for less $$. Apple blew it again!"

And, thinking back, its also what most of these board pundits said about the iPod mini. "Won't sell", "You can get a real iPod for $50 more, no one's going to buy this". Well, they were right on one account. Very few are buying them, but that's because demand is still outstripping supply.

I also seem to recall a lot more mac zealots on these boards lambasting the first iMac when it was announced ("OMG, its another toy! They'll never take us seriously!"), while the bashed analysts touted it as a good move (although, like with everything else Apple, all Mac commentary usually includes "If it only cost somewhat less...").

And the way some people are bashing this guy, you'd think he said the machine sucked and so did anyone who liked it. "All he's saying is that it ain't bad, but it ain't great, either. Close, but not quite. If only..."

Just like anyone non-apologist on this board would be saying about the outdated and underpowered GPU. But, no, you get the defenders of all things apple saying "It's fine, how dare you complain!" without trying to be at all objective...

ApeInTheShell
Senior User

Joined: Nov 2002

0

09/01, 03:59pm | report spam | close Reply |
Lain

If you have ever watched the anime "Lain" this should remind you of the Navi running Copland OS without the advanced voice recognition.

In my opinion, this is what the eMac should have been as far as design goes. Actually the eMac needs an upgrade but that is a "what if" for now. Honestly, I am impressed by the new iMac and hope it is as successful as its predecessor.

Cadaver
Addicted to MacNN

Joined: Jan 2003

0

09/01, 04:54pm | report spam | close Reply |
RE: consumer machine

[i]Finally, remember that the GPU is used to offload the UI. The better the GPU, the better the UI will work. Did it ever occur to you that some of those spinning beachballs people see are due slow graphics? Waiting for a window to open or waiting for it to be drawn. Either way, your waiting... [/i]

Not true. I see no UI speed difference when using a G5 with an nvidia FX5200 vs. a similarly-clocked G5 and a Radeon 9800 Pro.
This is a *consumer* machine. The 64MB nvidia card in the new iMac is lightyears ahead of Intel Integrated Graphics with shared RAM found in many consumer-class PCs, and you're still going to try to tell me its not good enough? Bah.

vortexlift
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Mar 2004

0

09/01, 05:08pm | report spam | close Reply |
Mr. Wrong

Ah, this is the same guy who predicted the iPod mini would be a failure like the G4 Cube? He said it was no revolutionary advance over iPod, too pricey for the hard drive space and too little capacity. Just style over substance without a defined market like the G4 Cube. Well, we'll see if he has to eat crow again. But if I'm a crow, I'd fly as far away from him as possible. ; )
Initial reactions from non-macheads around my neck of the woods is a lot of interest in it's great looking style, curiosity if the stand is sturdy enough to stay upright and whether it's better than the "old iMac". Many would buy one if it garners good reviews.
I think the price is good and fair for what you get: a G5 with large LCD screen and optical drive plus connectivity options galore. BUT, they now need to spiff up the eMac to bolster up the low end. I'd like to see a nextgen eMac consumer desktop starting at $699 or $799. Think we might see something like that soon?

edtekker
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Mar 2003

0

09/01, 07:42pm | report spam | close Reply |
Whoa

Hey edtekker - no need to be such a zealot.

Whoa, klinux! I've looked at my sparse two sentences, and I don't see anything that sounds like "Macs rule" or "PCs stink" or "Steve Jobs is a God." All I did was make a slightly humorous observation that technology analysts are often mistaken in their predictions for the success of any new technology. Just because I used the iPod as the example doesn't mean anything - I could have put in "cell phones" or "CD-ROMs." Sheesh, man, chill out.

LouZer
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Nov 2000

0

09/01, 10:38pm | report spam | close Reply |
Re: consumer machine

This is a *consumer* machine. The 64MB nvidia card in the new iMac is lightyears ahead of Intel Integrated Graphics with shared RAM found in many consumer-class PCs, and you're still going to try to tell me its not good enough? Bah.

So that's the basis we need to use to determine whether its acceptable. "Well, if I got a Dell, it'd be shared video, so I should be happy". If you go by that argument, they could go and stick an ATI Rage II+ thing in there and we should be happy. That's right. We should also expect the same from OS X. Who cares if the Finder is flaky and inconsistent. Its still better than windows. That's all that's important, right. We don't need perfection or refinement or anything.

You're all saying its a consumer machine. Well, I'm a consumer. I have no need for a tower. I use my mac for many things, including playing games. And I think it would be nice if there was a video card that'll play some of tomorrow's games, not a card for last years stuff. Oh, that's right. I'm apparently not a consumer (consumers apparently don't play games, we just send videos to grandma). I need to spend $2500 on a tower...

BTW, I just realized something. Keep in mind these things have built-in screens, like apple's powerbooks. I think you'd be crazy to buy this without getting the 3 year applecare (esp. with apple's history of screen problems, adding in the probability of screen failures with LCDs, tack on the fact that its integrated, so you can't just toss the screen and get a new one). Another 169 down the drain...

technohedz
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Jul 2000

0

09/01, 10:56pm | report spam | close Reply |
RE: Consumer Machine

[i]Finally, remember that the GPU is used to offload the UI. The better the GPU, the better the UI will work. Did it ever occur to you that some of those spinning beachballs people see are due slow graphics? Waiting for a window to open or waiting for it to be drawn. Either way, your waiting... [/i]

[i]Not true. I see no UI speed difference when using a G5 with an nvidia FX5200 vs. a similarly-clocked G5 and a Radeon 9800 Pro.
This is a *consumer* machine. The 64MB nvidia card in the new iMac is lightyears ahead of Intel Integrated Graphics with shared RAM found in many consumer-class PCs, and you're still going to try to tell me its not good enough? Bah.[/i]

The GPU offload is integral to quartz extreme (soon to be express only available in consumer models supporting ten users or less). You may not see much of a difference because you have a vfast processor and you aren't running Tiger. Sure, the menus on the dual G5 top of the line are 'almost' as fast as OS 9 menus, but a lot of the graphics in the UI aren't significantly faster. Apple has to do some load balancing here and when it comes to a processor that came out after the current OS, it's going to take a bit of adjustment. I'm willing to be you see a lot of improvement in the UI w/ Tiger esp w/ a G5 and a decent graphics card. The new imacs will probably preceed or come right after the next point. update and hopefully we'll see some boost there. W/O question the PC integrated or shared video systems are junk, but they also aren't being asked the same demands that Mac OS X is making.

I like the new imac. It's not that much money to go bottom end w/ the bluetooth keyboard (since it adds the internal module included in the price) and plug my existing peripherals into the nice selection of ports on the side. Hopefully it has independent controllers for some things instead of single 'aka pismo', but that is the least shortcoming. Where's the fw 800? Did I miss something. Apple has a technology that it is in their own best interests to promote as rapidly as possible and they don't throw it in? How much can it cost for the chipset anyways? Personally I think the orientation of the Optical drive sucks!! That thing needs to be on the bottom so you can bank imacs and you have minimal space problems. W/ all the titanium, aluminum, and patented plastics Apple has, you would think they could make a STRONG standard NOT SLOT loading optical drive drop down below the screen so as to maximize environmental space and play any size disk. Heat dissipation reasons...sure...except it's not a powerbook . I'd love to see apple pull off a fanless G5 imac b/c fans (even 25db) are still distracting.

5.1? IIRC apple isn't a dolby digital licensee. The interface should be better described as I hope it's a standard SPDIF () /toslink/optical out capable of RAW output. If it is, which I sincerely hope, then apple should hype that one

Loren
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Mar 2001

0

09/02, 12:28am | report spam | close Reply |
Get X-seri-ous!

[This was done 3 years ago, I should know since we still have some in use. If DVD-R/W was available back then it would have had it, and they have two (yes 2) cPCI slots for expansion. Mind you the cost was about $2100.00 per unit, but think about how expensive LCD technology was 3 years ago.

Apple has not produced something "revolutionary" in the new iMAC...]

No, that feels wrong, based on a look at the NetVista X, and user comments about it-- not only a spiky looking affair with a lot of bezel, it contained a whopping power brick as part of its "groundbreaking design." Okay, IBM gave the all in one concept a try first, I'll grant that. But Apple nailed it, they got everything in that screen, including the speakers, and that is both revolutionary and evolutionary.

And the columnist's idiot remarks about "slick compendium of ideas," "elements," this and that-- not to split too fine a hair, remember the Jobs mantra, "real artists ship." Ideas which become practical embodiments count most. Half baked ideas are yesterday's garbage.

Never a Dell moment at Apple!

- Loren

Show More Comments

Login Here

toggle

Network Headlines

05/24	Apple submits surprise optical stylus...
05/24	Yahoo releases Axis 'visual search'...
05/24	Apple airs two new Siri commercials...
05/23	Google launches redesigned Search app...
05/23	IBM blocking iPhone's Siri on internal...

Show All

05/25	Google picks up webOS Enyo team, Open...
05/24	Apple submits surprise optical stylus...
05/24	Yahoo releases Axis 'visual search'...
05/24	Google�s 7-inch tablet ships next month...
05/24	Apple airs two new Siri commercials...

Show All

05/23	Google launches redesigned Search app...
05/22	Leaked next-gen iPod touch part hints...
05/22	Hulu Plus updates with iPad Retina...
05/22	TiVo Stream to push TV to iPhones,...
05/22	Hands on: TouchType case for iPad,...

Show All

03/02	Save $330 on refurb. 15.4-inch, 2.4GHz...
03/01	Pre-owned 8GB iPod touch 2G, drops...
02/29	$150 off Nikon Coolpix S80 Compact...
02/28	Plantronics BackBeat 903 Bluetooth...
02/27	Refurb. Seagate 1.5TB GoFlex Portable...

Show All

toggle

BW: Apple's new iMac offers 'skin-deep' beauty

updated 08:55 am EDT, Wed September 1, 2004

iMac: \'Skin-deep\' beauty

Related Articles

Recent Articles

Copycats

IBM Netvista X-series

Cube

target audience

Memory

What do they want?

Sell too well?

Exactly!

Price / Performance ROCKS

PC switchers only?

retro harp

eating words

Was it suppose to be

Time for the MiniMac

Salkever misses mark.

Marketed To Consumers

RAM config etc.

Yawn.

Go back a couple years

BS

Consumer machine

Re: BS

Lain

RE: consumer machine

Mr. Wrong

Whoa

Re: consumer machine

RE: Consumer Machine

Get X-seri-ous!

Login Here

Register for our weekly email newsletter:

Connect tools:

Subscribe

to our RSS

Follow us

on Twitter

10 Most Read

10 Most Discussed

MacNN Marketplace