Mac Addicts shity new site ...

Jump to First Reply
the cool gutthe cool gut
Posted:
in General Discussion edited January 2014
http://macaddict.com/



\



It's about time they dumped the lime green ... how long has it been since those lime green ibooks got canned anyway?







They could learn a thing or two about jpg compression for the web as well ... total hack job.

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 5
    rokrok Posts: 3,519member
    sigh... i am going to edit my original thoughts. can't go into it.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 2 of 5
    eugeneeugene Posts: 8,254member
    MacAddict was shitty upon inception. All Mac print publications started going way downhill in the late 90s. I remember such glorious Macworld issues that were larger than 8.5x11 inches, half an inch thick, printed on thick paper, and not filled with ads every other page. The February 93 issue with all the new Centrises, Quadras, PowerBooks, LC III and Color Classic was magnificent.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 3 of 5
    pscatespscates Posts: 5,847member
    Yes, I started buying Macworld in 1993. I remember quite vividly subscribing to them for most of 1994 and most of 1995 when I first moved to California. One of my favorite things to do was take a couple of issues to the beach with me because they were so HUGE and jam-packed with articles, info, reviews, etc. that 1 or 2 issues would EASILY take you through an entire day of beach reading.



    I remember my favorite cover: an Illustrator vs. Freehand face-off, with two arm-wrestling arms on a green background. This was probably sometime in late 1994.







    Now I read my new issues, cover to cover, in less than an hour.







    I miss the old way. And I wish we had a Mac magazine(s) here in the U.S. that was as nicely designed, beautifully photographed and as jammed with tips, reviews, how-to's, infographics, real-world tutorials, etc. as all those cool UK-based ones!



    MacAddict sucks really, really bad. MacHome, while nice, is a bit "beginner" in tone for me. MacDesign is often too flippant and cocky in its delivery. And Macworld is hit or miss these days.



    But there's not excuse for MacAddict. I hate everything about that sorry rag and waste of a good tree.



     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 4 of 5
    1337_5l4xx0r1337_5l4xx0r Posts: 1,558member
    Design is such a fascinating arena. The balance of form and function... One wonders why 'Macaddict' is so ****ing huge when a) screen realestate is precious, especially on a web site (many people have smaller screens, but must view the same site)



    b) the macaddict word is a jpeg, and image sizes in crease proportional to their dimensions (usually). In other words, it is a poor use of bandwidth.



    c) to get to the site, one either clicks a link that says 'macaddict' or types in 'macaddict.com' into the URL field of a web browser. Thus, 'Macaddict' spelled in huge letters, as a large jpeg is redundant.



    To be honest, I find the site unremarkable.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 5 of 5
    gardenofearthlydelightsgardenofearthlydelights Posts: 963member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by pscates

    MacAddict sucks really, really bad. MacHome, while nice, is a bit "beginner" in tone for me. MacDesign is often too flippant and cocky in its delivery. And Macworld is hit or miss these days.



    But there's not excuse for MacAddict. I hate everything about that sorry rag and waste of a good tree.







    I like the magazine a lot. To each his own.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
Sign In or Register to comment.