pointlessbanter.net— Check out the following list of 10 vomitous personal computers and tell me you don’t look away in horror at least once.
Dec 10, 2008View in Crawl 4
IMHO, beauty is a result of form following function.I've always admired products that were engineered well for their intended purpose, even if the packaging was perhaps unaesthetic. For example, the C-130 Hercules or most of the Shorts airplanes...basically ugly crates with wings, but ugly in a beautiful way (if you follow what I mean).On the other hand, I absolutely *hate* designs that add extra crap just for show. For example, I was at the Ford dealership a year and a half ago, and the salesman was showing me this brand new, tricked out Mustang GT. It looked good until I noticed the hood scoops didn't actually have an air inlet in them -- they were just there to "look cool", which in my opinion made the whole car look cheesy.
When I was a kid we had one of these (I used to hate apple because they had all the good games)I must say it wasn't a bad looking machine (aluminum with real wood sides)<a class="user" href="http://www.old-computers.com/museum/computer.asp?c=572&amp;st=1">http://www.old-computers.com/museum/computer.asp?c ...</a>Ohio ScientificCHALLENGER 4PWhen the C4P was launched, Ohio Scientific said that it was a giant step in the world of the home computers. It was twice as fast as an Apple ll or Commodore Pet and more than three times as fast as a Tandy TRS 80.However, despite its technological lead, the C4P and other Ohio Scientific computers always suffered of a lack in efficient software and attractive handbooks. For this reason, very few third companies built cards and peripherals for the Challenger series. So, the C4P didn't withstand to the competition of the Apple II and II+ version which appeared 4 months later.However, Ohio Scientific sold it until 1981 as a business oriented system.
heh, i have one of those, and i gotta agree... its just natural progression, with exception of course, that our old tech looks really ugly when we look back on it, and we just sit there thinking what the f**k was wrong with us. i really don't know how in the past, making everything look like a box was the in thing...
valynDec 10, 2008
Sick of s**tty sites that cant handle the traffic, if it needs a mirror, I'm burying it.
jstem1994Dec 10, 2008
The kitchen computer looks like it belongs in A Clockwork Orange. And the Sharp MZ80C was kinda cool, with it's Funnycar raised-lid styling.(working link from above comments: <a class="user" href="http://jaysonelliot.squarespace.com/journal/2008/12/10/really-not-the-ugliest-computers-ever.html">http://jaysonelliot.squarespace.com/journal/2008/1 ...</a> )
elementopDec 10, 2008
IMHO, beauty is a result of form following function.I've always admired products that were engineered well for their intended purpose, even if the packaging was perhaps unaesthetic. For example, the C-130 Hercules or most of the Shorts airplanes...basically ugly crates with wings, but ugly in a beautiful way (if you follow what I mean).On the other hand, I absolutely *hate* designs that add extra crap just for show. For example, I was at the Ford dealership a year and a half ago, and the salesman was showing me this brand new, tricked out Mustang GT. It looked good until I noticed the hood scoops didn't actually have an air inlet in them -- they were just there to "look cool", which in my opinion made the whole car look cheesy.
ragarnokDec 10, 2008
Yeah the Abacus is the epitome of 1970s big boxes computer, and the IBM ICS looks like it could actually be used..to launch an ICBM
surferjoemauiDec 11, 2008
When I was a kid we had one of these (I used to hate apple because they had all the good games)I must say it wasn't a bad looking machine (aluminum with real wood sides)<a class="user" href="http://www.old-computers.com/museum/computer.asp?c=572&amp;st=1">http://www.old-computers.com/museum/computer.asp?c ...</a>Ohio ScientificCHALLENGER 4PWhen the C4P was launched, Ohio Scientific said that it was a giant step in the world of the home computers. It was twice as fast as an Apple ll or Commodore Pet and more than three times as fast as a Tandy TRS 80.However, despite its technological lead, the C4P and other Ohio Scientific computers always suffered of a lack in efficient software and attractive handbooks. For this reason, very few third companies built cards and peripherals for the Challenger series. So, the C4P didn't withstand to the competition of the Apple II and II+ version which appeared 4 months later.However, Ohio Scientific sold it until 1981 as a business oriented system.
cannarymburnsDec 11, 2008
heh, i have one of those, and i gotta agree... its just natural progression, with exception of course, that our old tech looks really ugly when we look back on it, and we just sit there thinking what the f**k was wrong with us. i really don't know how in the past, making everything look like a box was the in thing...
rstefanovDec 12, 2008
Wow those are nice. Or maybe there were nice 50 years ago.