Hacker News Reader

Comment by pan69 | Hacker News Reader

Regardless of specs, it's an absolute terrible looking device, a real monstrosity I would say.

I was just looking into getting a MacPro after years of self building my boxes and started to warm up towards the "previous" Mac Pro boxes/towers.

However, getting a MacPro is now longer a option with this "design" and self build suddenly seems quite appealing again.

View on HN

Well, that’s just, like, your opinion.

Design is the worst. Searching for bookshelf speakers during the last month was an appalling experience. I think they all look absolutely disgusting, no matter how much you want to spend. HiFi people all have disgusting taste. But that’s also just my opinion. They seem to honestly believe that their ugly bookshelf speakers are stunning.

If you are looking at the lower end, have you checked out the Audioengine A2 speakers? I have the black ones and while they aren't the sexiest, pure black is pretty good looking.

Audioengine A5 + Audioengine S8 + Nuforce Icon HDP is my current rig. Can't be beaten in its price bracket, IMO.

Oh it can be beaten.

For hundreds less you can easily build a near-identical system. For example: Audioengine A5 + Audioengine S8 + Behringer UCA202. DACs are grossly overrated when it comes to their influence on sound quality. Regardless, the UCA202 measures outstandingly well.

For somewhat less you can easily build a much, much, much, much better system. For example: Audioengine A5 + Audioengine S8 + Behringer UCA202 + MiniDSP 2x4 + MiniDSP UMIK-1 + Room EQ Wizard. This nets you basic room response correction, plus an active crossover between the speakers and sub. Configured well, you could get a more linear response, better imaging, and better bass integration.

To be fair, the reason I got the NuForce Icon HDP is for my headphones (Sennheiser HD650); the DAC is great, but the preamp for headphones is downright spectacular. Anyway, it doubles as my DAC for my speakers.

Ha, the Audioengine speakers were the notable exception. I thought they looked ok. In the end I decided against them.

An Airplay speaker is my stopgap measure for my current (tiny) living space and maybe I will take another look in 5-10 years. I prefer listening with my headphones anyway.

I think most hifi people would say if you're basing your speaker decision on how they look you're doing it wrong.

No, they are convinced that the speakers look gorgeous.

Besides, I think looks are quite important. You have to live with those things in the end and I do not want to have ugly boxes in my living space.

Have you looked at minipod speakers? They are quite impressive in form and function.

http://store.podspeakers.com/product/minipod-mk2-106/ or http://store.podspeakers.com/category/smallpod-18/

Looks weird to me...

No, this is weird... http://www.bowers-wilkins.com/Speakers/Home_Audio/Nautilus/T...

Don’t even get me started on how ridiculously overpriced and full of voodoo bullshit all the HiFi stuff is, you know, besides being extremely ugly (like the speakers you are linked to – which are not the typical rustic look but still disgustingly ugly).

I mean – for example – fucking bi-wiring terminals? I can’t seriously buy shit from companies that support and feed into superstition like that.

Also, you can trust no one, everyone who reviews this shit is themselves highly irrational with a big aversion to the scientific method. Those idiots are reviewing €1,000 speaker cables seriously. I don’t think I could ever trust crooks like that.

I don’t think I will ever be able to even communicate with people who get €100 gold-plated USB cables …

I’m guessing the reason for that all is that HiFi has seriously fallen out of the mainstream and now it’s all about computers and TVs. All that remained for HiFi companies and the journalism surrounding it is to chase and foster unreason. Also, seriously fucked-up aesthetic tastes.

Silly me. Here I've been buying computers all these years based on their ability to help me get work done.

That actually raises an interesting idea. Does it say anything about the state of a technology when the design becomes a purchasing factor in addition to just the functionality?

In 1995 no one cared what a PC looked like. The driving factors were "You mean I can send a message...electronically!?", "I can chat with other people in a chatroom in real time!?", etc. But today those features are commonplace, and people really do care about how the product looks as much as the capabilities of the hardware. Does this imply some sort of plateau in the progress of the technology or the features it offers? I'd say yes - if a fully functional VR system were available tomorrow (think Oculus v10.0+) it's design would be almost irrelevant in light of the new experiences it offered.

We've hit that point a few times. I'd say the first time was in '98 or so when the original iMac came out. And while there have been various PC clones of Apple laptops since the PowerBook G4s the MacBook Air certainly gained a ton of imitators.

Then again, you could argue the Air wasn't style but usability/convenience of lower weight/size.

"In 1995 no one cared"

I'll take that thought one step further. The sound of an "ugly" teletype banging away line by line with a "basic" program was actually quite cool. Later on I thought I had it made when I could find a green crt that wasn't all beat in the school computer center. [1]

[1] Used one of these at Wharton:

http://www.columbia.edu/cu/computinghistory/pdp10.html

In 1995 lots of people cared, Me, for one. And it was nice when companies like SGI and Sun put real care and thought into the design of their workstations. I could never afford one for myself, but I ooh-ed and aah-ed whenever I got to work on one of those fantastic machines. I guess it took Apple to notice that a well designed computer at a good price point would sell well enough to make it worth it

> Does it say anything about the state of a technology when the design becomes a purchasing factor in addition to just the functionality?

That it's become mainstream like an automobile? Or a house?

Style is also important. Here's a great book on the subject: http://www.amazon.com/Substance-Style-P-S-Virginia-Postrel-e...

>Regardless of specs, it's an absolute terrible looking device, a real monstrosity I would say.

You could say that, but then you'd have no taste.

>However, getting a MacPro is now longer a option with this "design" and self build suddenly seems quite appealing again.

Go for it. Don't forget the xeon lights.

It's a simple black cylinder, I think it's fantastically minimal.

I love the shape and functionality of the case, but the chrome-plated shiny is IMO unnecessarily garish.

That said, on the whole of it, I like the design. It also looks pretty self-serviceable, maybe OEMs will start making mobos and graphics cards in this form factor. I'd honestly rather get rid of the monstrosity of a tower I have under my desk for something this size.

The shine seems a little odd to me too, I wonder if it's like that in-person.

I was actually thinking that if a 3rd party could come up with a transparent replacement for the shell that could hold up to the head without cracking, that would look amazing.

It is about as shiny as the top of a Macbook Air. Studio lights and Photoshop are used heavily on the marketing shots.

You are in the minority. I think it's stunningly beautiful.

I agree, but I bet it wont be long before there are custom bamboo "sleeves" for it.

It does have the advantage of being extremely quiet. If you find yourself looking at it in disgust, you could probably put it inside the hollowed shell of an old Mac Pro. Or just put it behind your monitor or under your desk.

People often make similar comments about high end hardware. Another common line of reasoning is, "I would have been interested in this, but it does not have $esoteric_feature, so I'll have to pass until the upcoming $new_model comes out."

My going-in assumption is that such people are not really serious about buying the hardware at all.

It's OK not to be in this corner of the market, but the rationalizations are tiresome.

I'm still slightly iffy on how it looks externally, and I'm still not fond of the lack of user upgradeability, but I have to admit that the interior is a truly remarkable piece of engineering.

Didn't they just say today that the CPU is upgrade able. On top of the ssd, ram, and possibly gpu being user upgradable.

I don't think they count the CPU as a field serviceable part, and those gpu cards look equally ugly to actually replace in practice. It would have been rather nice had Apple gone with industry standards for the various modules -- MXM seems a lot nicer and less error-prone of a standard for connecting cards to the backplane than the monstrosity they went with.

I wish they had embraced the interior triangle design and the ultra-high tech look of the components instead of hiding it behind a garishly bad taste chrome trashcan cylinder. The bits with the case off look like something an alien civilization might have left behind or pieces that fell off of a top secret surveillance aircraft or a small nuke -- stunning.

If you're not buying the new Mac Pro because of aesthetics, you're certainly not in their target market of professionals who need this machine.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com