# Apple's worst product (in your eye's)



## DempsyMac (May 24, 2007)

I just found this thread Your most awesome best amazing coolest sweetest mind blowing mac thing ever and as much as there will be many things to list I am sure that everyone knows that Apple has made a few mistakes along there long and wonderful history. Lets air the dirty laundry.


I will start it off with the FlowerPower iMac G3








Not sure what they were thinking when they thought this would be a hit.


----------



## The G3 Man (Oct 7, 2008)

Don`t Know if it counts. But the HP iPod 40GB 4th gen.


Morgan


----------



## monokitty (Jan 26, 2002)




----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

Must of repaired hundreds of these. Worst piece of crap ever.


----------



## DempsyMac (May 24, 2007)

I remember repairing hundreds of Performa 5200's but the entire Performa line was crap (and ugly too)


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

Trevor Robertson said:


> I remember repairing hundreds of Performa 5200's but the entire Performa line was crap (and ugly too)


Yeah... Performa 5200 would be tied for me for worst. 

Oh, the dark years of Apple when they were beleaguered.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

Hockey Puck Mouse, Performa 5200 or the latest new improved Keyboard. Take your choice, all equally AWFUL.


----------



## johnnyspade (Aug 24, 2007)

I have always hated the Mighty Mouse.


----------



## monokitty (Jan 26, 2002)

ehMax said:


> Must of repaired hundreds of these. Worst piece of crap ever.


Reminds me of the pre-iSight iMac G5 models. Garbage...


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Lars said:


>


Agree 100%!

I just had one of these in my hand a week ago. I was swapping out the HDD and adding more RAM to old a yard sale iMac for a friend who decided to get his first computer. I told him to go to London Drugs and buy a $10 Logitech scroll wheel, rather than use that thing.

On the other hand his 9-year-old $25 iMac is a great product, it's now running Panther really well. But I hope Apple fired whoever came up with that mouse.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

The aluminum keyboard is near the top of my list. It seems like Apple is cutting costs by utilizing components originally designed for the laptops.


----------



## monokitty (Jan 26, 2002)

MannyP Design said:


> The aluminum keyboard is near the top of my list. It seems like Apple is cutting costs by utilizing components originally designed for the laptops.


I disagree. I absolutely love the new(er) aluminum keyboard. Feels great, types great, and unlike all previous generations of Apple keyboards, the aluminum one is _quiet_.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

MannyP Design said:


> The aluminum keyboard is near the top of my list. It seems like Apple is cutting costs by utilizing components originally designed for the laptops.


To each their own. I really like my "chicklet" keyboards (my wife does too). We have three of them one in my wife's office one in the living room and a full size version for my Mac Pro.


----------



## garf1108 (May 30, 2006)

Mighty mouse


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

Lars said:


> I disagree. I absolutely love the new(er) aluminum keyboard. Feels great, types great, and unlike all previous generations of Apple keyboards, the aluminum one is _quiet_.


I seem to recall the last two or three generations of Mac keyboards being pretty frickin' quiet. Especially the small black keyboard that came with the iMac. It's not like they emitted a giant clacking noise. LOL


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Any Mac mouse!


----------



## iMatt (Dec 3, 2004)

How about a relatively obscure one: the iPod camera connector.

Good idea, lousy implementation. Should have worked with more iPod models (including those unable to display photos), should still work with new models.


----------



## morespace54 (Mar 4, 2005)

Trevor Robertson said:


> I remember repairing hundreds of Performa 5200's but the entire Performa line was crap (and ugly too)


My vote goes to the Performa 5200CD too...


----------



## The Great SNAFU (Jan 12, 2005)

*Is Not It's Most Ubiquitous*

The Cube...










I was there for it's unveiling at MacWorld NY and I turned to my companion on the trip and said 'what were they thinking?!' after Mister Jobs told us the price.

We are loyal inovative creative but we are not stupid Mac people, there's a reason it didn't sell 


'Mage & 'tude she said


----------



## fyrefly (Apr 16, 2005)

garf1108 said:


> Mighty mouse


+1, probably not the worst EVER, but definitely one of the worst things in the product lineup right now. Scoll Ball is all about getting gummed up and not working. Bleh.


----------



## Britnell (Jan 4, 2002)

Cyber Dog


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

The Great SNAFU said:


> The Cube...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I was there too! Below, two photos I took at the event:


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I like the aluminum keyboard for function, but the characters are already wearing off the keys. 

Worst product: The Pippin.


----------



## monokitty (Jan 26, 2002)

MannyP Design said:


> I seem to recall the last two or three generations of Mac keyboards being pretty frickin' quiet. Especially the small black keyboard that came with the iMac. It's not like they emitted a giant clacking noise. LOL


The last generation keyboards were quiet for the first few months - then became obnoxious. The current aluminum keyboard doesn't even compare to the previous style keyboard in noise production. The faster one typed on the last generation keyboard, the worse the sound became.


----------



## ScanMan (Sep 11, 2007)

These babies get my vote.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

ScanMan said:


> These babies get my vote.


Mine was great, used it for years until colour inkjets became cheap.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

ScanMan said:


> These babies get my vote.


Slow, noisy and clunky but excellent print quality for the era. Mine is still working 14 years later. Hardly the worst Apple product ever. 

I am convinced that the designer the hockey puck mouse put together the current keyboard line. For those of us who are getting older the lack of definition between rows (or even keys) make it completely useless.


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

ScanMan said:


> These babies get my vote.


Are you kidding!  Those things were work horses! They don't make ink-jet printers like that any more. Simple printer to just print black text. 

I was selling ink for those 10 years after they stopped making them.


----------



## ScanMan (Sep 11, 2007)

ehMax said:


> Are you kidding!  Those things were work horses!


I've had two. My experience: working one day, dead the next.

(edit) Apologies to StyleWriter II owners. I wanted to post a generic StyleWriter image and now realize it's not the model that's given me grief. 

That would be the StyleWriter 2500.


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

Britnell said:


> Cyber Dog


Ha ha... Opendoc. The technology that nobody knew what the H377 it was.


----------



## Niteshooter (Aug 8, 2008)

Worse... yeah the !uck mouse would be right up there next to these new aluminum keyboards. My wrists cramp up on the darn things and I'm at least 40% slower typing on them as well. Junk.

K


----------



## reddrag0n (Jul 19, 2006)

The worst product that i used and probably everyone would agree with me, would be the Powermac 4400.


----------



## satchmo (May 26, 2005)

Anyone who hates the puck mouse can send it my way. 

Took me a while to get use to it, but the second gen version had a small nub that helped with orientation. 

The small size is great for moving simply with the fingers and not the whole wrist or arm.
That said, I've moved onto a Bamboo tablet which is better than any mouse...for drawing at least. 

As for worse designed Mac would have to be any Performa...something like the 580 comes to mind.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Macfury said:


> I like the aluminum keyboard for function, but the characters are already wearing off the keys.


No such problems here and they get used A LOT. Are you still under warranty, maybe you can get an exchange?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

screature said:


> No such problems here and they get used A LOT. Are you still under warranty, maybe you can get an exchange?


I believe I still am under warranty. A year? Thanks for jolting me from my lethargy.The A and S keys are almost invisible now and D is on the way.


----------



## Trevor... (Feb 21, 2003)

Hardware:

The eMac, iBook G4 and iMac G5 - These three product lines were utter and complete garbage quality wise. 

The bizarre proprietary expansion slots used in the LC and Performa series, especially LC PDS. 

Software:

Classic, not Mac OS 9 - but the Classic environment in Mac OS X itself. 
The Mac OS X Public Betas (aka Cheetah 10.0, Puma 10.1 and Jaguar 10.2)
Early PowerPC versions of System 7


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

Trevor... said:


> Hardware:
> 
> The eMac, iBook G4 and iMac G5 - These three product lines were utter and complete garbage quality wise.


Are you saying the entire product lines, or one particular model?

There were 5 eMac models, 6 iMac G5 models, and for iBook G4 models. 

My iMac G5 iSight was a pretty nice machine.


----------



## greydoggie (Apr 21, 2009)

I hated the way the original iMacs looked when they came out and I still dont' like them. I also dont like the old square mice but you cant really call that Apple's worst product because when those ones were around hardly any other computers even had mice.
I like my aluminum keyboard.
When we got our 1st bubble jet printer we wanted a HP and the store was sold out of them and tried to sell us a Canon which is a lot like those apple ones. We got the HP instead but knew some people who had the Canons and they all hated them. We still have the HP and it still works.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

Lars said:


> The last generation keyboards were quiet for the first few months - then became obnoxious. The current aluminum keyboard doesn't even compare to the previous style keyboard in noise production. The faster one typed on the last generation keyboard, the worse the sound became.


Let me guess... you eat food at your keyboard, don't you? I have three keyboards here that are still quiet--and they range from 2 to 7 years of use and none of them are obnoxiously loud.


----------



## e4l (Dec 20, 2007)

Ear buds. Maybe my ears are deformed, but I can't even sit without them falling out, let alone move around with them.

el


----------



## Isight (Oct 20, 2007)

I for one think that the puck mouse and G4 Cube are very cool looking. But as fot ther functionality......


----------



## macintosh doctor (Mar 23, 2009)

I loved the cube.. sold lots and did plenty of upgrades on them, video cards, processors etc...
clients still have them in the field: board rooms - they look cool.

but this is the worst product ever...
next to the puck mouse.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Mine's still working fine a decade + later - and it's a design fetish in Japan.....

•••

high on the list


----------



## Trevor... (Feb 21, 2003)

ehMax said:


> Are you saying the entire product lines, or one particular model?
> 
> There were 5 eMac models, 6 iMac G5 models, and for iBook G4 models.
> 
> My iMac G5 iSight was a pretty nice machine.


Unfortunately yes, our failure rate on those machines was unbelievable - especially the eMacs which were made up of 700mhz and 1ghz models (by that time we figured out not to buy any more). Although in fairness the iSight G5's are completely different machines - different chipset, different graphics card etc. Apple had a few years of real quality problems early in the decade. By contrast only one of our army of Mac Mini's has died and none of the Macbook / Pro's.


----------



## yoyo (Aug 3, 2003)

Ditto on the iPod earphones. They paired the worst product with the best, the ipod.


----------



## greydoggie (Apr 21, 2009)

MacDoc said:


> Mine's still working fine a decade + later - and it's a design fetish in Japan.....
> 
> •••
> 
> high on the list


 I used to want one of those when they were new. Never got one tho. I think I was using my IIcx then. Which I still have.


----------



## ScanMan (Sep 11, 2007)

MacDoc said:


> high on the list...Performa 5200


A buddy had that. His kid called it "the ghetto".


----------



## gwillikers (Jun 19, 2003)

I completely agree! I'm glad you posted, now I don't have to search for a picture of that god-forsaken beige box.



reddrag0n said:


> The worst product that i used and probably everyone would agree with me, would be the Powermac 4400.


----------



## gordguide (Jan 13, 2001)

Runner Up: Macintosh Portable.

Winner: Macintosh TV.

Look at those specs!

32Mhz '030, 160 MB HD, 2x CD-ROM, up to 8MB RAM, built-in 14" 640x480 "TV screen", no Ethernet, no modem, no internal expansion slot of any kind, and only $US 2100.00. Came with System 7.1 and cannot be upgraded past 7.6.1. Sold for about four months, before they were gathered up and sent to the landfill (rumoured to be in Texas or Arizona).

Ongoing legacy: the TV tuner card was resurrected and became an option in the famous "Road Apple", the Performa 5200 series.


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

This is actually a very challenging question!

I never had a problem with the "hockey puck" mouse -- my large hand entirely enveloped it, so it worked beautifully for me.

The Cube may have been one of Apple's bigger mistakes (price-wise), but functionally it was great and the design -- well I have to point out that much of what we like about today's iMacs and towers came from the Cube. Apple's engineers pushed the envelope on that machine and learned a LOT from it.

But there is plenty of actual crap with Apple's name on it. I always found the original iMac keyboards too small, the little-remembered "Molar" Mac, the Power Mac G3 All-In-One (a precursor to the iMac, but without any design sense):









Or the underpowered-overpriced 20th Anniversary Mac:









But for all-time worst all-around value, I think I gotta go with Gord and agree that it was the Macintosh TV. And I'm usually such a sucker for anything black ...


----------



## The G3 Man (Oct 7, 2008)

What kind of problems did the eMac's have? My school has a lab of 25, not a problem since day 1.

Morgan


----------



## Niteshooter (Aug 8, 2008)

What's interesting about this thread is that some of the products mentioned are sought after by serious (aka crazy) Mac collectors such as the Mac TV, TAM, Cube and Flower Power/Dalmation iMac.

I suppose the puck mouse will one day fall into this category since most are probably sitting in landfills or have been de-balled for use in slingshots.


----------



## bighog (Jan 13, 2001)

ehMax said:


> Must of repaired hundreds of these. Worst piece of crap ever.


Hands down one of the worst machines made in terms of reliability.


----------



## bsenka (Jan 27, 2009)

Apple's current crop of keyboards (both desktop and mobile) are by far the worst products they've ever made. Those keyboards are the only things keeping me from buying a Macbook Pro right now, and the one that came with my iMac is a source of aggravation like none I've ever seen. I replaced it with one from a ten year old G4.

Surprised at the hate for the 5200. Sure it was underpowered (and the monitor was crazy small), but all low-end Macs were in those years. Mine never had a single issue. The current iMac could learn a lot of good lessons about functional design from the 5200. Easy user access to everything.


----------



## macintosh doctor (Mar 23, 2009)

bsenka said:


> Apple's current crop of keyboards (both desktop and mobile) are by far the worst products they've ever made. .


You are the only person that complained for the new keyboards.
everyone loves the touch and feed back..

only complaint is the mini keyboard and lack of numeric keypad.

I have the original BT white keyboard with numeric keypad.. because i need the numeric keypad for accounting - not impressed with the dirt that gets in it.


----------



## macintosh doctor (Mar 23, 2009)

The G3 Man said:


> What kind of problems did the eMac's have? My school has a lab of 25, not a problem since day 1.
> 
> Morgan


logic board - capacitors would blow. causing emac to freeze..
there was a recall, but ended about 2 years ago.


----------



## The Doug (Jun 14, 2003)

bsenka said:


> Apple's current crop of keyboards (both desktop and mobile) are by far the worst products they've ever made.


I like the current desktop keyboard very much. I bought mine the day they were released, absolutely no problems since. I like the feel, it's so nice to use it after spending a day with the clicky-clacky keyboard that came with my Dell From Hell at work.


----------



## Niteshooter (Aug 8, 2008)

macintosh doctor said:


> You are the only person that complained for the new keyboards.
> everyone loves the touch and feed back..
> 
> only complaint is the mini keyboard and lack of numeric keypad.
> ...


Uh nope. If I didn't already have a bunch of the older keyboards at hand I would have shipped back all the Mac Pro's we just got in at work. Every last one of them! The new thin keyboards are junk, look nice and trick and don't hold and display all the crud that falls in the last generation clear one's but these new ones are painful to type on. Maybe not if you only use two fingers but I'm a touch typist and I find the feel and position that they put my hands in to be DREADFUL.

First Mac keyboard I have ever used that I've had this problem with and that's going back as far as the Lisa.

As for dirt in the keyboards, yeah we have a couple that are growing stuff but removing two torx screws and a blast from a compressor solves that issue.

Kevin


----------



## Stephanie (Jul 21, 2004)

I love the aluminum keyboards as well - it took me about 3 days to get fully used to it, but I like them so much now I bought two more to use on macs that didn't come with them. About the only drawback I can think of is that they're more awkward if you have very long fingernails... otherwise IMHO they are a joy to use.

-Stephanie


----------



## The Doug (Jun 14, 2003)

Niteshooter said:


> ...I'm a touch typist and I find the feel and position that they put my hands in to be DREADFUL.


I'm a touch typist as well, and I don't find them dreadful. Go figure, eh?


----------



## Darien Red Sox (Oct 24, 2006)

I never tried a hockey puck mouse, and I love the mighty mouse, the Power Macintosh 8100 though was a pain to upgrade the RAM which would probability bring it to the top of the list for the most hated product.


----------



## DempsyMac (May 24, 2007)

Darien Red Sox said:


> I never tried a hockey puck mouse, and I love the mighty mouse, the Power Macintosh 8100 though was a pain to upgrade the RAM which would probability bring it to the top of the list for the most hated product.


ouch 8100 I think I still have scratches on my hands from that stupid computer design!


----------



## Darien Red Sox (Oct 24, 2006)

As bad as the 8100 was it was better than some Dell designs though. The other day I spent about 10 min with my hands nested between a power supply and the side of the case adding a stick of RAM. No easer way to do it, I considered removing the power supply but in order to do that I would need to take care of the tangle of cables which would involve removing everything else. The RAM slot thought with the factory installed RAM was easy to get to although this did not help me because I was leaving that chip in place.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

macintosh doctor said:


> *You are the only person that complained for the new keyboards.
> *everyone loves the touch and feed back..
> 
> only complaint is the mini keyboard and lack of numeric keypad.
> ...


Sorry, not everyone. I also voiced my displeasure with the keyboard as well a couple of pages back.

It's like typing with chicklets.


----------



## macintosh doctor (Mar 23, 2009)

MannyP Design said:


> Sorry, not everyone. I also voiced my displeasure with the keyboard as well a couple of pages back.
> 
> It's like typing with chicklets.


i should of added of my clients.. they all love it.
and they are all designers..


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

I'd say all of the Intel based Apples are "worst products" in my opinion, and I would think it would be great if Apple at least kept the door open to some progressive minded technology, perhaps in the form of a real 64-bit RISC processor, or maybe even using something like the Cell. However, I don't think they are "worst" when it comes to computers - and even an Intel based Apple is much better than say, a typical Dell or HP lump. Overall, Apple has always been ahead of the curve, and their migration to a *Nix based OS puts them far and ahead of garbage like Fi$ta.

When it comes to "worst" and Apple, I more think about those features that have gone missing, or were added that have no value. Like FireWire, which has been deleted from some models, but not replaced on them by something viable like eSATA. Or that they stick new buyers with crummy keyboards that are just terrible. Or their crummy Mighty Mouse. But then, keyboards and mice can easily be replaced with superior units for not much money, while stuff like missing FireWire is a real impediment. I think moves like saddling many of their machines with cheap dithered LCD screens is a "worst", same with video systems that "share" the main memory. Other skullduggery includes models of iPods/iPhones/iTouches that are proprietary and will only run with specific versions of OSX. But then, none of this is "worst" when compared to some of the offerings of the so called competition.

As for some of the postings, the hockey puck mouse may be a "worst" for Apple, but compared with a lot of mouse offerings on other machines, it is a dream. At least one can actually type (sort of) on a new Apple keyboard, tons of PC keyboards are simply terrible, like the crud IBM used on their ThickPads. (As well, that machine had the worst pointer device of all time). FlowerPower was odd looking - makes you feel that you are in a beauty salon in 1962, but at least the machine ran. There are tens of thousands of PC tower cases that are plain ugly - so ugly a coat of paint woulnd't help.

Basically my opinion is that Apple's "worsts" are significantly better than other manufacturers "worsts" - and in many cases, Apple's "worsts" are better than some manufacturers "best".


----------



## DempsyMac (May 24, 2007)

EvanPitts said:


> I'd say all of the Intel based Apples are "worst products" in my opinion, and I would think it would be great if Apple at least kept the door open to some progressive minded technology, perhaps in the form of a real 64-bit RISC processor, or maybe even using something like the Cell. However, I don't think they are "worst" when it comes to computers - and even an Intel based Apple is much better than say, a typical Dell or HP lump. Overall, Apple has always been ahead of the curve, and their migration to a *Nix based OS puts them far and ahead of garbage like Fi$ta.


I agree with most of what you said but I have to wonder why you think that intel inside was a bad idea. Doing this has allowed Apple to grow there market share by a fair bit. Combining that with Boot Camp or parallels and you remove one of the biggest objections that people have with the mac (software availability).

I would love to hear why other then innovation, as I think that the innovation from Apple is mostly in the form of software not processor as they have never made computer processors anyway.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

macintosh doctor said:


> i should of added of my clients.. they all love it.
> and they are all designers..


Oh, well, I guess that changes everything.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

Trevor Robertson said:


> I agree with most of what you said but I have to wonder why you think that intel inside was a bad idea.


Because Intel processors are the worst garbage on the market, riddled with bugs, data stored backwards in memory, and probably worst of all, the infinitesimal "upgrades" that seen to come out of their fabs on a weekly basis. I don't think they even bother to design their processors with a mind to speed, but rather, they take a chip and test it to see when it will fail - and that's the new "design". Apple ends up a part of it, with all of the crazy slight speed differences, and an endless list of various codenames to denote the collections of bugs.

It is my hope that Apple is not entirely brain damaged - that they will continue to develop their OS so they can port it to any platform of their choice, so that one day, when some manufacturer brings out a real 64-bit processor - they can migrate to it, or any other platform. Having been exposed to Intel processors and their low quality and poor instruction set for years - Motorola processors were a dream to work with, and so were PowerPC chips. Stable, reliable, predictable - and none of the hidden op code shenanigans and fake features that Intel loves to get involved in.

At least Apple resisted the pull towards some of the more insane things that Intel does - however, Apples are crippled by the latency and poor throughput of the Intel Northbridge and Southbridge - and I can see a move very soon to abandon these - since Apple now has PASemi that can address these problems appropriately.



> Combining that with Boot Camp or parallels and you remove one of the biggest objections that people have with the mac (software availability).


Software compatibility is a very real problem that will persist, no matter what, since the computer industry is resistant to migrating to standard C Language. Perhaps the only way that this will actually happen is when "online applets" start taking a big chomp out of the software market. This will require greater access to high speed Internet and more optimal standard programming languages than Java currently is. Making a dual boot Apple is not the real solution in the long run, because it forces people to waste resources and time by fiddling with multiple operating systems - rather than just having software companies make software that is portable across platforms.

Part of the problem of thinking that "going Intel" is a solution is that it locks even more of the industry into a long obsolete platfrom that is no longer optimal. We have been stuck in this 16-bit/32-bit mode for so long, and only diddle with 64-bit, rather than just sucking it up and saying that today's applications really do need the power of a true 64-bit architecture. Or at least of having that option down the road. Even 64-bit may not be a good solution, but perhaps 80-bit, where everything is handled as an IEEE formatted number, optimised for rendering and transforms, is more of a way.

But then, the market really has been static, and people are buying cheap, retrograde junk like the Atom, or the obsolete Pentium stuff - so perhaps we will not make any real progress, but to continue in the wastefilled ways we have now.

As for Apple - I don't think they have innovative software or hardware - but rather, are keen at designing software and hardware that are integrated and use the resources of the machine effectively - and look cool at the same time.


----------



## DempsyMac (May 24, 2007)

Thanks for the summary Evan.

I agree that web apps and cloud computing may be the take away from this, but I still think that until cell internet speed increases dramatically that we will still need locally run apps and that for a large number of people need to be able to run windows apps.


----------



## The G3 Man (Oct 7, 2008)

macintosh doctor said:


> i should of added of my clients.. they all love it.
> and they are all designers..


Then you must not have many clients! beejacon

Morgan


----------



## jmlachance (Nov 6, 2005)

Lars said:


> Reminds me of the pre-iSight iMac G5 models. Garbage...


OH yeah? That's the model I have and I love it. Easy to work inside, I did have the PS replaced but that was covered anyways. Why do you say it's garbage?


----------



## maximusbibicus (Feb 25, 2002)

jmlachance said:


> OH yeah? That's the model I have and I love it. Easy to work inside, I did have the PS replaced but that was covered anyways. Why do you say it's garbage?


Same. The guts were laid out very well in that machine.....its when they went to the iSights machines where it went downhill. In terms of reliability, mine was rock solid, can't speak for others.


----------



## macintosh doctor (Mar 23, 2009)

The G3 Man said:


> Then you must not have many clients! beejacon
> 
> Morgan


:clap::lmao:

You do not need quantity, but quality! :greedy:
those are the ones that matter..


----------



## wheelerb (May 4, 2009)

*Super Disk*










Do you remember have to use these after apple cut the floppy drives. lol

Also, I hate all Mac mice.


----------



## The G3 Man (Oct 7, 2008)

macintosh doctor said:


> :clap::lmao:
> 
> You do not need quantity, but quality! :greedy:
> those are the ones that matter..


I just could not resist LoL!

Morgan


----------



## The G3 Man (Oct 7, 2008)

wheelerb said:


> Do you remember have to use these after apple cut the floppy drives. lol
> 
> Also, I hate all Mac mice.


I still have mine. Right beside me on my desk. Hooked up to my Power Mac G4. (which I am using now)

Morgan


----------



## macintosh doctor (Mar 23, 2009)

The G3 Man said:


> I just could not resist LoL!
> 
> Morgan


Not to worry my friend after 20+ years in the business - i have heard it all and seen it all.
I have pretty tough skin, i do not easily get offended..
takes a lot to perturb me.. 

BTW - apple never made that external floppy, it was 3M... topic was Apple's worst products.  but yes that floppy was a rip off, cheaper to buy a zip drive.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

macintosh doctor said:


> Not to worry my friend after 20+ years in the business - i have heard it all and seen it all.
> I have pretty tough skin, i do not easily get offended..
> takes a lot to perturb me..
> 
> BTW - apple never made that external floppy, it was 3M... topic was Apple's worst products.  but yes that floppy was a rip off, cheaper to buy a zip drive.


Ah yes the click of death drive. 

FWIW those Imation Super Disks held 120 MBs and were somewhat cheaper than the ZIP Disks. Still there was a long period there when CD burners were expensive as were the CDS. All that left Mac users somewhat in the lurch for back-up strategies, unless they could afford a Blue and White with an extra HD.


----------



## wheelerb (May 4, 2009)

macintosh doctor said:


> BTW - apple never made that external floppy, it was 3M...


Actually it was Imation and I realize the topic, I just thought it was related and interesting. Please forgive me.

Also, its true that these disks were much better than floppies and cheaper the cds but I found that it was very unreliable and you always had to coax it to work. 

Any way. I'm done talking about this non apple product.


----------



## The G3 Man (Oct 7, 2008)

Apple _III_


----------



## Niteshooter (Aug 8, 2008)

macintosh doctor said:


> i should of added of my clients.. they all love it.
> and they are all designers..


Hmmm don't most designers do more mousing than typing.....

and not even sure that's a good example since one of our senior designers uses her mouse UPSIDE DOWN, cord and buttons at the bottom so left is right and right is left and has for the past 21 years.


----------



## DempsyMac (May 24, 2007)

Niteshooter said:


> Hmmm don't most designers do more mousing than typing.....
> 
> and not even sure that's a good example since one of our senior designers uses her mouse UPSIDE DOWN, cord and buttons at the bottom so left is right and right is left and has for the past 21 years.


wow never heard of that one before!


----------



## ScanMan (Sep 11, 2007)

Niteshooter said:


> ...one of our senior designers uses her mouse UPSIDE DOWN


Just tried that. Now I'm blind in one eye from the laser.


----------



## jmlachance (Nov 6, 2005)

maximusbibicus said:


> Same. The guts were laid out very well in that machine.....its when they went to the iSights machines where it went downhill. In terms of reliability, mine was rock solid, can't speak for others.


So I wonder why the addition of a camera would cause the design to change so much internally?
How are the new Intel Imacs in that respect?


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

jmlachance said:


> So I wonder why the addition of a camera would cause the design to change so much internally?
> How are the new Intel Imacs in that respect?


It wasn't the addition of a camera that caused the (internal) design change.

My guess is that they were pre-designing for the (coming) Intel transition.


----------



## bsenka (Jan 27, 2009)

chas_m said:


> It wasn't the addition of a camera that caused the (internal) design change.
> 
> My guess is that they were pre-designing for the (coming) Intel transition.


I think they really took a wrong turn somewhere when it comes to how the iMac internals are designed. Too much emphasis on thin, at the expense of functional design. I'd much prefer mine to be slightly thicker if that meant that the internals were more readily accessible by the user. The back should be an easy to remove cover that gives unfettered access to the major components. At bare minimum, I should at least be able to get at the hard drive without having to perform major surgery. It should be at least as easy as it is on the Macbooks.

That's why I defended the 5200 somewhat earlier in this thread. Pretty much all of the components were accessible quickly and easily. I did a lot of tinkering and upgrading of mine back in the day. I only wish my iMac was half as user friendly in that regard.


----------



## Niteshooter (Aug 8, 2008)

Trevor Robertson said:


> wow never heard of that one before!


I know, I should get a video and post it. I've never seen anyone else do this.


----------



## jmlachance (Nov 6, 2005)

bsenka said:


> I think they really took a wrong turn somewhere when it comes to how the iMac internals are designed. Too much emphasis on thin, at the expense of functional design. I'd much prefer mine to be slightly thicker if that meant that the internals were more readily accessible by the user. The back should be an easy to remove cover that gives unfettered access to the major components. At bare minimum, I should at least be able to get at the hard drive without having to perform major surgery. It should be at least as easy as it is on the Macbooks.
> 
> That's why I defended the 5200 somewhat earlier in this thread. Pretty much all of the components were accessible quickly and easily. I did a lot of tinkering and upgrading of mine back in the day. I only wish my iMac was half as user friendly in that regard.



OK,guess I'll hold on to the old G5 for a while...Was sort of eyeing a newr Intel Imac eventually but if they're not so user friendly on the inside, I won't be in too much of a rush. I buy cars with somewhat the same idea,since I do a lot of the repairs and maintenance myself...


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

bsenka said:


> The back should be an easy to remove cover that gives unfettered access to the major components.


I know that's what YOU (and I and every Mac tech) would like, but you're not thinking this through. Let me put a few concepts out there for you.

*Curious kids
*Stupid noobs who love to tinker but don't know what they're doing
*Clever pets
*Expensive components
*Live electricity
*Sharp edges
*Lawsuits

Mix and match those to suit, and voila! The reason Apple doesn't have easy-open cases except for the Pro machines (which presumably are mostly in the hands of reasonably-savvy computer owners).



> At bare minimum, I should at least be able to get at the hard drive without having to perform major surgery. It should be at least as easy as it is on the Macbooks.


AMEN TO THAT.



> That's why I defended the 5200 somewhat earlier in this thread. Pretty much all of the components were accessible quickly and easily.


Yes, but as someone else said first "I still have the scratches from those days to prove it."


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


me neither and it's actually quite intuitive - always something new. Using the thumb over the laser works tho it needs acceleration. No wrist movement.

It's really a variation of a trackball and the hand position is quite relaxed.


----------



## imobile (Oct 6, 2007)

*Airport on the newer Macs ...*

s = 'no network selected' when HAS been selected!
And Network setting supposedly locked' unlock themselves after a restart!
And the 'utility' says no Apple airport 'discovered' when the green light on airport is shining brightly twenty feet away!

Further why does it have to scan IF a network is selected?
Surely there could be a locked setting for home, a 'scan' setting for outside world?

The unreliablity is true of my Nov 2008 MBP, and May 2008 iMac.
The 4.5 tear old iBook is far more reliable re airtunes .. will play for hours whilst other two simply quit whenever they feel like doing so...

For a $300 investment (?) .... Airport Extreme and Airport Express that is not good enough!

So.. Airport needs MUCHO work!


----------



## Stephanie (Jul 21, 2004)

bsenka said:


> I think they really took a wrong turn somewhere when it comes to how the iMac internals are designed. Too much emphasis on thin, at the expense of functional design. I'd much prefer mine to be slightly thicker if that meant that the internals were more readily accessible by the user. The back should be an easy to remove cover that gives unfettered access to the major components. At bare minimum, I should at least be able to get at the hard drive without having to perform major surgery. It should be at least as easy as it is on the Macbooks.
> 
> That's why I defended the 5200 somewhat earlier in this thread. Pretty much all of the components were accessible quickly and easily. I did a lot of tinkering and upgrading of mine back in the day. I only wish my iMac was half as user friendly in that regard.


I'll agree with that wholeheartedly - it seems like every Mac outside of the towers has been intentionally designed to make it as difficult as possible to get the hard drive out. I've had (non-apple) laptops where you removed two screws to remove a cover and slide the HD out. Apple's emphasis on thin, sleek, and no screws may look pretty but who cares what the back looks like? 

I recently had to replace the HD in my 2007 iMac aluminum, and while it didn't take a long time, it was a bit stressful getting in there - you have to go in through the screen, to get at the insides! The glass part is held on by (powerful) magnets, then there's about 16 screws to free the LCD panel, then a few more screws to get the HD out. 

I do love my iMac, but I'd much rather see a half dozen screws on the back if that meant I could get in there easily.

-Stephanie


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

I love my Penryn 2.5 Ghz MacBook Pro but sure do miss the ease of replacing the hard drive in the black MacBook.

Wait, worst product ever?

12" RGB monitor. There was no way to look at without seeing the scanning lines. It was like watching a computer on TV. But it fit really well on top of my IIsi. And hey, it had *thousands* of colours!


----------



## jeepguy (Apr 4, 2008)

EvanPitts said:


> At least Apple resisted the pull towards some of the more insane things that Intel does - however, Apples are crippled by the latency and poor throughput of the Intel Northbridge and Southbridge - and I can see a move very soon to abandon these - since Apple now has PASemi that can address these problems appropriately.


They have in part, by going to nVidia which intergrates the north/south bridge chips but at the cost of integrated graphics and shared memory.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

jeepguy said:


> They have in part, by going to nVidia which intergrates the north/south bridge chips but at the cost of integrated graphics and shared memory.


The only real breakthrough is when Apple abandons the restrictions of Northbridge/Southbridge - and gets on with some decent hardware. NVidia is certainly a much better solution than the crummy Intel video stuff - since no one really ever did support Intel's video, even fifteen years ago when they were trying to push their inferior video products. Getting away from this stuff would see some rather big improvements in performace, for instance, Apple could easily provide FireWire once again at little extra cost, thus addressing the whole question of Media. Also, Intel's implementation of USB is non-standard, so going to real USB would bring benefits when it comes to compatibility and functionality. Apple could also exploit other bus schemes which offer much greater throughput, like a decent Ethernet interface rather than Intel's brain damaged variant. The whole thing with these bridge chipsets just hems in processor performance, and brings far too much latency for emerging real world uses. Nvidia is at least a step - but they also need to start offering an ATI chipset, since ATI is pretty much the standard by which everything is measured these days.

But we shall see what happens, since the clock is ticking on Apple's deal with Intel, and with a little less than two years to go, Apple needs something for the long term. I think Apple is also becoming annoyed, just as they became annoyed with IBM when progress became stalled - because Apple is still stuck with obsolete designs like the Core2Duo - because Intel has not made an efficient Core i7 that can be used in a laptop. Perhaps there is still a chance that Apple will go with something high performance, like a Cell - simply because Intel is dragging their heels while making an ever expanding range of inferior processors, like the Atom, Pentium Duo, and Centrino...


----------



## gordguide (Jan 13, 2001)

" ... That's why I defended the 5200 somewhat earlier in this thread. Pretty much all of the components were accessible quickly and easily. I did a lot of tinkering and upgrading of mine back in the day. I only wish my iMac was half as user friendly in that regard. ..."

They were based on the 630 motherboard & case design, which was a 68040 machine. The slide-out motherboard was handy, you have to admit.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Ur not Apple's target market.


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

imobile said:


> So.. Airport needs MUCHO work!


Your conclusion isn't supported by anything other than one person's (your) experience. I'm not saying it's your fault, I'm saying that your experience isn't typical. You should either isolate the actual problem or have the Airport repaired/replaced.


----------



## imobile (Oct 6, 2007)

*Only one person's experience...??*



chas_m said:


> Your conclusion isn't supported by anything other than one person's (your) experience. I'm not saying it's your fault, I'm saying that your experience isn't typical. You should either isolate the actual problem or have the Airport repaired/replaced.



I think not.
Read earlier threads on this site and others such as MacFixIt.
There have been many woes reported re Airport.

Right now ( today) my network is flawless.
( Airport Extreme connected Shaw High Speed modem in basement with Airport Express upstairs to facilitate airtunes ( on Ch 9 as nearest neighbour's networks says Net Barrier, are on Ch 3 and 6.)

However can you answer why Network in System preferences does not stay 'locked'?
I assumed, obviously erroneously, that the PORPOISE of locking something was to secure the settings?
But the preference ( the locking) unlocks itself.
I thought admin passwords were needed to unlock settings if that is way the computer is set up.

I believe airport should have two types of settings.. one for one's home network ( where settings are FIXED ) and a roaming or outside setting where it can search its little heart out looking for networks!

Cheers


----------



## Manatus (May 11, 2009)

I have to say that I've been a bit disappointed with my Airport Extreme as well, mostly because it cost like $300. It works fine now, but it's a big hassle to update, or pretty much any time it needs to restart. I still haven't updated to the latest firmware (again) yet because the first time I did it, it basically cut off the signal (green light was on, but no signal, couldn't even detect the Airport's existence wirelessly, something that lots of people experienced on the Apple forums). I had to crawl behind the desk with an ethernet cable just to communicate with the Airport and manually downgrade the firmware. Though I have to admit, no problems since then, despite it asking me to update the firmware every time my Macbook turns on... I'm scared!

Worst product... I'm thinking perhaps the original standalone CD reader, the one that came with a CD caddy. I know it was early in the life of CD technology, but I spent $750 on that thing and used it about 20 times simply because there were so few CDs for it and most of them cost about $100. Or the TAM. I think "worst products" are so collectible these days because owners have either tossed them out long ago (and therefore they're rare), or have shelved them away and never used them (keeping them in pristine condition forever).


----------



## K_OS (Dec 13, 2002)

Just a few Apple products that I was disappointed with.

Apple Style writer = worst inkjet that I ever used it almost made the trouble to hook up a compatible Canon Bubblejet worth the headache.

Apple Quicktake 100 = even for its time this camera sucked.

Apple Pippin = Apple's 1st and hopefully last venture into making a video game console even tough it could have been so much more it lagged behind even the Sega Saturn in console sales.

Performa 6400 = Tough to upgrade anything in this computer especially since Macs at the time were easy to configure and upgrade I'm sure that slick looking exterior had something to do with the internal problems of this great looking Mac.

PS: and the 3 iBook's that I've had succumb to the dreaded logic board problem.

Laterz


----------



## DempsyMac (May 24, 2007)

K_OS said:


> Apple Style writer = worst inkjet that I ever used it almost made the trouble to hook up a compatible Canon Bubblejet worth the headache.


He he this is funny as Canon made the StyleWriters for Apple so the Canon that you went to the trouble to plug in would have been the same thing.

Apple did drop Canon later for HP starting with um I think the SW4500


----------



## hayesk (Mar 5, 2000)

K_OS said:


> Just a few Apple products that I was disappointed with.
> 
> Apple Style writer = worst inkjet that I ever used it almost made the trouble to hook up a compatible Canon Bubblejet worth the headache.


Mine worked fine as did everyone else's I knew of. I thought the thread was about poorly designed Apple products, not "Apple products for which I happened to get a lemon." 


> Apple Quicktake 100 = even for its time this camera sucked.


I dispute "even for it's time" - it was state of the art for digital cameras at the time. It was fine for web photos (for the web of its time). It wasn't a great product, but I wouldn't say it sucked.


> Apple Pippin = Apple's 1st and hopefully last venture into making a video game console even tough it could have been so much more it lagged behind even the Sega Saturn in console sales.


No argument there.

Worst product in my view?
- AppleTV - underpowered for its price
- Pippen (underpowered, undermarketed, no software titles)
- puck mouse - Apple's biggest "form over function" blunder in my opinion
- MacIIvi, Performa 6360 were others


----------



## hayesk (Mar 5, 2000)

HowEver said:


> Wait, worst product ever?
> 
> 12" RGB monitor. There was no way to look at without seeing the scanning lines. It was like watching a computer on TV. But it fit really well on top of my IIsi. And hey, it had *thousands* of colours!


I had one for my LC. I wouldn't say it was the worst product ever, but it was a 512x384 12" CRT screen - you can't really expect better. The quality was quite good - rich colours, sharp pixels, but it was simply too low res for its size.


----------



## macintosh doctor (Mar 23, 2009)

hayesk said:


> Worst product in my view?
> - AppleTV - underpowered for its price
> - Pippen (underpowered, undermarketed, no software titles)
> - puck mouse - Apple's biggest "form over function" blunder in my opinion
> - MacIIvi, Performa 6360 were others


I will add one more - it seems forgotten but it was horrible because it never took off.
but it did open the doors to others like AOL and facebook etc

eWORLD... how many of you even remember that..


----------



## DempsyMac (May 24, 2007)

eWorld I remember that 

Now lives on as a lowly icon set :-(


----------



## K_OS (Dec 13, 2002)

Trevor Robertson said:


> He he this is funny as Canon made the StyleWriters for Apple so the Canon that you went to the trouble to plug in would have been the same thing.
> 
> Apple did drop Canon later for HP starting with um I think the SW4500


I guess I'm too much of a tinkerer then as I didn't know about that at the time and the Canon did give me less trouble than the Stylewriter.



> I dispute "even for it's time" - it was state of the art for digital cameras at the time. It was fine for web photos (for the web of its time). It wasn't a great product, but I wouldn't say it sucked.


I just never got a good shot out of it despite the tech guy at the college telling me that the bloody thing was working fine, I swear some days it was easier to pull out my film camera, take the shot, get it developed over night, scan it into the computer, color correct it in Photoshop and then drop it into Quark, oh I forgot to mention all of this was being done on a IIsi as well.

Laterz


----------



## ScanMan (Sep 11, 2007)

K_OS said:


> Apple Style writer = worst inkjet that I ever used...


I'll 2nd that. 

As I mentioned earlier in this thread, both StyleWriter 2500s that I owned were junk tech. Yes, yes, a rebadged Canon BJ, but junk nonetheless, with an extremely fussy cartridge system. Once seated, brand new tanks could be rendered instantly useless by the slightest contact.

It's understandable that Apple felt obliged to offer a line of printers. These to me, however, were a huge disappointment. 

I still feel bad that I fobbed them off to Goodwill. Should simply have cooked them on the Weber.


----------



## imobile (Oct 6, 2007)

*SUMTIMES chas_m gives good answers ...*



imobile said:


> I think not.
> Read earlier threads on this site and others such as MacFixIt.
> There have been many woes reported re Airport.
> 
> ...



Other times , as he has been accused of before, our dear incoming Victorian , doth fall into the 'know it all' category!
Talking down?
True, he doth seem very knowledgeable ... however ~!
Might be a Yankee trait eh?
But he is living amongst us now!

To say...
"Your conclusion isn't supported by anything other than one person's (your) experience. :

Is contrary to Apple Support forums.... amongst others!
Apple - Support - Discussions - Excessive Airport Scanning after 10.5.2 ...

There have been a continuing litany of complaints.

And today, maybe I might have found a part of my problem...
Using the Freeware 
AP Grapher 
Chimoosoft - Freeware and Shareware Software for Mac OS X

I find to my horror that my neighbours ... one 40 feet away, the other over 80 feet have a stronger signal than my network of Airport Extreme/Airport Express ... both 'n' ones too!

I'm the 'green one' .. the weakest signal of em all!

Seems every time they come on...I suffer 'drop outs'!
Pages don't load, any videos stop playing!

More work needed!
By me!

And by Apple!


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

The StyleWriter II and 1200 were excellent if noisy printers (at least for their time). The colour StyleWriters were not so good. However the only good colour inkjets at that time were the Epsons. Trouble with them is that the heads started to clog about a week after the warranty expired.


----------



## spiffychristian (Mar 17, 2008)

.


----------



## tonyrubicon (Apr 15, 2008)

spiffychristian said:


> the new talking ipod shuffle.
> 
> one of their nicer looking inventions, and most definitely not the worst (to some people) but i think it's the stupidest.


hahah i know! i tried it at the apple store and it was confusing.


----------



## imobile (Oct 6, 2007)

*I was wrong re AP Scanner ( from AP Grapher)*

And today, maybe I might have found a part of my problem...
Using the Freeware 
AP Grapher 
Chimoosoft - Freeware and Shareware Software for Mac OS X

I find to my horror that my neighbours ... one 40 feet away, the other over 80 feet have a stronger signal than my network of Airport Extreme/Airport Express ... both 'n' ones too!

I'm the 'green one' .. the weakest signal of em all!

Seems every time they come on...I suffer 'drop outs'!
Pages don't load, any videos stop playing!

More work needed!
By me!

And by Apple![/QUOTE]

AFTER more work...
A realization!
DUH!!!
The green is THE BEST signal.
It is 65 upstairs ( and a far better 34 in the basement ) I guess this 1948 built house was built like a brick sh******e. Walls are also plaster over gyprock!

I must admit that Airport seems faster/stronger with 10.5.7 upgrade.

Who knows what tomorrow will bring?


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

imobile:

You might try changing the "channel" of your router. That should help.


----------



## Stephanie (Jul 21, 2004)

imobile said:


> I find to my horror that my neighbours ... one 40 feet away, the other over 80 feet have a stronger signal than my network of Airport Extreme/Airport Express ... both 'n' ones too!
> 
> I'm the 'green one' .. the weakest signal of em all!



Actually that image says your signal is strongest. The numbers (if I'm not mistaken) represent the signal vs. a theoretical ideal, and as you see the numbers are negatives, the lower number is the better. At least as important, if not more so, is the SNR - signal to noise ratio. It says that your noise floor is the lowest of the three, and the difference between your signal strength and the noise floor is the highest.

I suppose the software should have come with an explanation so people would learn how to actually understand the results, but this is fairly standard when dealing with radio signals. No two ways about it, that screen shows your signal is hands-down the best of the three, with the strongest signal, lowest noise floor, and best SNR.

-Stephanie


----------



## imobile (Oct 6, 2007)

*Thanks ~ I have chas_m...*



chas_m said:


> imobile:
> 
> You might try changing the "channel" of your router. That should help.


I'm on Ch 9.
I read somewhere to use the three apart rule...
if a neighbour is on Ch 6... the default one ... then go up/down by three!

As they are on Ch 3 and Ch 6 ( so says NetBarrier ) and I was on Ch 11 and having problems , I opted for Ch 9.
That and the 10.5.7 seems to have worked wonders.

Airport seems to be stable! Now, have to work on self!

By the way, we have in North America Ch 1-11 for wireless, in Europe they have Ch 1-14. However in Japan they only have one channel, either 3 or 4.
Must be a mess there?


----------



## imobile (Oct 6, 2007)

*Thanks Stephanie...*



Stephanie said:


> Actually that image says your signal is strongest. The numbers (if I'm not mistaken) represent the signal vs. a theoretical ideal, and as you see the numbers are negatives, the lower number is the better. At least as important, if not more so, is the SNR - signal to noise ratio. It says that your noise floor is the lowest of the three, and the difference between your signal strength and the noise floor is the highest.
> 
> I suppose the software should have come with an explanation so people would learn how to actually understand the results, but this is fairly standard when dealing with radio signals. No two ways about it, that screen shows your signal is hands-down the best of the three, with the strongest signal, lowest noise floor, and best SNR.
> 
> -Stephanie



Yes, I came to that realization after the 10.5.7 update whrn I took the MBP down to basement rec room where cable/Airport Extreme is located.
Signal ( dropped) ...well went 'up" to 35 from 65!

So read the HELP... slow eh? ... and of course as you explain, GREEN is good!
And lower signal ( numerical) is higher! Duh!

Thanks!


----------



## Eric0 (Nov 22, 2007)

Of Apple's more recent products, I would definitely vote for the Apple TV.


----------



## lolibra (Nov 13, 2007)

Eric0 said:


> Of Apple's more recent products, I would definitely vote for the Apple TV.


Agreed


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

Airport Express - the dumbest looking thing possible. Looks like the power supply for an iBook. The AirPort at least looked cool. Never understood why they called the AirPort Extreme "extreme", it wasn't that much faster...


----------



## mc3251 (Sep 28, 2007)

fyrefly said:


> +1, probably not the worst EVER, but definitely one of the worst things in the product lineup right now. Scoll Ball is all about getting gummed up and not working. Bleh.


+1, one of the most annoying products (and they're aren't many). I love that liitle scroll ball, but just CANT keep the friggin' thing clean.


----------



## Mr.Tickles (Mar 25, 2009)

the iMac puck was pretty awful. I went out and bought an intellemouse and it's served me well for more than ten years.


----------



## mc3251 (Sep 28, 2007)

How come no one has mentioned Newton? or Lisa?


----------



## Stephanie (Jul 21, 2004)

mc3251 said:


> How come no one has mentioned Newton? or Lisa?


Haha - I mentioned the Newton in the 'best ever' thread. The Newton MP2100 that is. The original messagepad... quite possibly does deserve mention in this thread. 

-Stephanie


----------

