Slashdot Mirror
Macintosh's 1984 Debut
Stephen E. Jobs writes "SiliconValley.com is celebrating the 20th anniversary of the Mac by republishing some of its coverage of the machine's 1984 launch. 'After two years of secrecy, brainstorming and sometimes zany company maneuvering, Apple Computer Inc. will unveil a new personal computer Jan. 24 that is the size of a stack of paper and, for about the same price, contains more power than the basic IBM PC.' That's how one writer described the Apple Macintosh in 1984. There's more at SiliconValley.com."
This is just my opinion, but I think that Mac has always been geared towards the artist, while IBM has always been aimed at engineers. Using either of these machines one could see the begining of this trend, and now in the year 2004 it is still true. I do not believe that either machine is better than the other, and they never were. The difference between the two is more right-brain left brain.
3 degrees of separation from Vladimir Putin
I remember being completely skeptical of that new "point and click with a mouse" thing, in the macintosh. It looked like a cool idea, but in my keyboard-oriented mind, I just couldn't imagine how, lord, HOW you could tell the computer what to do by entirely relying on clicks on graphics. Steve Jobs was a great envisioner (or xerox copycat, depending of your point of view).
IMHO the big advance on the Mac at the time was having a high-quality (for the time) bit-mapped display on a consumer priced PC - even then it seemed an amazing waste of memory
This statement really tells a lot about the problems that Apple had throughout the mid 80's to late 90's. They were so innovative, that they often fell "off of the curve". In 1984, Joe Consumer wasn't about to spend $2500 on a computer; an appliance that was, at the time, a luxery, and not a necessity. And certainly, it had no where near the ubiquitiy that it enjoys today. Microsoft knew that the timing for a "computer for the masses" was around the mid 90's, ten years after the Mac debuted. So they *ahem* borrow the Mac's look and feel, and release Win 95. IIRC, '95 was around the time that Apple decided that the next revolution in computing was in handhelds and palmtops that could respond to a user "writing" rather than keying in data. The Newton exploded onto the market, and promptly gathered dust on the shelves as users passed it by. A scant four years later, 3Com capitalizes on Apple's brilliant but horribly timed innovation with the Palm series.
It looks like after 20 years, Apple is finally getting it right. The IMac was the first "sexy" computer. Only a year later, I see that I can buy neon ground effects for my transparent PC. ITunes was released at exactly the perfect time. And should be, and rightly so, a cornerstone of Apple's brand identity for the first decade of the 21'st century. So, Happy Birthday to the Mac, and congrats to the great engineers at Apple that have finally learned that innovation and market timing are inseperable.
Xenon, where's my money? -Borno
According to several sources, Microsoft has been working on Mac software for more than a year. Early on, Mac project leader Steve Jobs took the Mac plans to Microsoft founder Bill Gates, sources said. Gates reportedly agreed not to produce similar mouse-based software for a year, but with Mac behind schedule, Microsoft was able to jump into the market in 1983 with its own mouse programs for the IBM PC.
I wondered if I would ever find out exactly how Microsoft was ever able to take the Mac GUI, complete with Mac icons. There have been many conflicting stories over the years. Since this is from 1984, I tend to think we might have finally found something accurate.
Now that's an Amiga attitude! If you were living in 1993 what you say might be relevant, but none of us exist in the past. It's 2004. The fastest Amiga that can run a real, released AmigaOS is what, a PPC604? yes. It's a PPC604. Don't go counting the AmigaOne and it's generic G3 or G4 motherboard because then you're falling into the typical Amiga trap of living for vaporware. Perhaps when AmigaOS4 is actually released and not a "Beta that will be here next month!!" you can only be 5 years behind the times.
In fact, the amiga, to this day, is the ONLY computer that can run Mac software on a 68060, the FASTEST 680x0 CPU ever made
That is a lie. 68060 adaptors work just fine in a Quadra 630 and will boot and use the macOS without problem. Making a big deal about the FASTEST 680x0 CPU is irrelevant when, by the time a 68060 was released, the rest of the world was using 200MHz+ Pentiums and PowerPCs. Behind the times yet again.
If you wish to use that argument, then you may as well use it against yourself. The PC is, to this day, the only computer that can run Amiga software on a *insert favorite x86 CPU name here*, the FASTEST x86 CPU ever made. What's the point?
can you really claim Media Center PCs, Tablet PCs, Pocket PCs, the XBox, Media Player 9 (player and codecs), etc... stagnation?
Let's see...
Media Center PC -- What's that? I've yet to see anyone who has one.
Tablet PC -- A fantastic step backwards in design. If you're already lugging two pounds and something the size of a notebook around, why not just use a notebook PC? It does everything a tablet PC does and more, and has a much easier input interface.
Pocket PC -- Oh, huge innovation there. Apple beat them. Palm beat them. Handspring beat them. That's just another ripoff.
XBox -- Everyone's got a PS2. Sorry. Putting a P3-700 in a box with a harddrive and a TV-out running a stripped down windows kernel and DirectX doesn't count as "innovation". That's called "building a computer that plugs into the TV". And Sony's done it better.
Media Player 9 -- The player sucks. Sure, there are some good new codecs, but the best interface they ever had was in 6.4. Ever since spacebar-to-pause-and-play was removed, they've gone downhill. Whoever thought that was a good idea seriously needs a smack with the cluestick.
I can easily get lithographics of a Renoir for a few bucks, but an original will cost big bucks.
"People will pay big bucks for the luxury of ignorance."
I personally consider the Macintosh to be the "official platform" of zealotry. Mac zealots are a unique bunch and I think are the most obnoxious of zealots. Plus they have the original "figurehead" in Steve Jobs. Sure Linux has "The Linus" and Windows (can you be a Windows zealot?) has "Gates of Borg" but Jobs came before them and his reality distortion field is IMO stronger.
What I found really strange was that I didn't expect it to happen to me. All of the Mac nuts I know (with a small handfull of exceptions) all just got a wild hair up their ass and oneday just went and bought a Mac. That's the first step and it seems like all of them suddenly began to hold all other platforms in deep contempt.
Then comes the inevitable collecting of old Apples, Macs, and Next computers. Before you know it you have a room in your house dedicated to a bunch of old computers you didn't even care about 6 months before. You're watching keynote speeches you didn't care about 6 months before.
BSD and Linux would be I think more relevant so maybe you want to be one of those guys. With those you've got cool operating systems and there's nothing wrong with that. With Macs though you've got old hardware AND old software that's unique to your new hobby. You've also got all kinds of collectible junk to spend cash on.
I'd go Mac but then I'm biased
Appended to the end of comments you post. 120 chars.
We're fanatical because we care.
I'm willing to concede that Apple and Steve have plenty of faults. Unfortunately, the alternatives have far worse ones.
I'd rather be around a bunch of fanatics than The Resigned.
D
Christ, not that tired old analogy again.
Apple has certainly not kept their solution proprietary--they have acceded to "market demands". Any tower Mac has AGP, PCI, USB, ATA... all technologies which were created on the PC side of the fence. Rather than battle with proprietary designs (even Firewire, Apple-innovated, has been accepted as the de facto new A/V transmission standard, cross-platform), Apple has certainly chosen more compatibility, not less. Furthermore, every Mac since System 7.1 Pro has had the ability to read and write PC media. And now, OS X is, with its core: BSD!
This is a long ways from the time when PC and Mac hardware/software was absolutely separate, with completely different interfaces on each platform. When it comes to compatibility, Macs are a far cry from a "proprietary" design, relative to what it once was, these days.