Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Apple History At folklore.org

Posted by timothy on from the fun-reading dept.

oaklybonn writes "Andy Hertzfeld seems to be the primary author on this fascinating site, which details many of his experiences in the Macintosh (Bicycle??) development efforts. It includes such choice commentary as: "we were amazed that such a thoroughly bad game could be co-authored by Microsoft's co-founder, and that he would actually want to take credit for it in the comments.", on a page describing a game bundled with the original IBM PC." Reader themexican adds "As a plus, Hertzfeld notes in the faq that the python code running the well-designed and easy to navigate site will be made public in the near future."

69 of 223 comments (clear)

  1. Mac Anniversary by ahacop@wmuc.umd.edu · · Score: 4, Interesting

    So, what happened with the rumors of a special announcement on Monday in commemorate the Mac's anniversary?

    1. Re:Mac Anniversary by mr100percent · · Score: 2, Funny

      Well, all Apple did to celebrate was release...a security update. Ta Da!

      Not my joke, just copying from an earlier post from another story.

  2. Bicycle by mr100percent · · Score: 5, Informative
    What, no elaboration on why it was called the Bicycle? Fine, I'll enlighten you.

    Apparently there was a story in Scientific American, or Popular Science, or some such magazine where the scientists were trying to determine what was the most efficient of animals in terms of locomotion. Which creature moved with the least amount of calories burned? Well, humans were waay down the list, pathetic in terms of other creatures. The top animal with the most efficient means of movement was an eagle or something. Then, one guy had this idea to measure how efficient a human being is on a bicycle. It was awesome, he was drastically more efficient, able to go further and without burning as many calories. It knocked the bird out of first place.

    So, early on, Apple was planning on calling it the "Bicycle for the Mind." I don't know if it makes as much an impact if you don't know the story behind it.

    I got this anecdote from one of the Apple behind-the-scenes books (I forget which), like Apple Confidential.

    1. Re:Bicycle by kfg · · Score: 5, Interesting

      You also have to understand the energy crisis culture at the time the fact that more scientific research went into bicycles in the previous ten years than probably all of thier history previous.

      It was right about at that time that the number of bicycles in America once again outnumbered cars.

      In 1980 in think there like 10,000 people in America who had ever heard of the Tour de France. In 1984 it was nearly as commonly known as the World Series.

      Bicycle was actually a buzzword.

      There is a species of albatros that lives entirely at sea for months at a time, generally soaring at little more than wave hight. It is so adapted to this enviroment and so efficeint in flight that it can sleep while so soaring.

      Even though water is a dense medium animals that are adapted to it do not have to expend energy supporting their own weight. I've got the chart from MIT around here somewhere, but can't lay hands on it immediately, as I recall the dolphin and tuna and salmon topped the list for animal motion by its own power (a soaring bird may use little energy, but that's because it's not doing much of anything. Air and gravity are.) A Portugese Man-o-War simply floats with the tide, as a man in an innertube might. Torpor is very energy efficient.

      So what animal is the most efficeint will change with your definition of "motion."

      It is interesting to note, however, that not only is a man on a bicycle more energy efficient than a swimming dolphin, but he is more energy efficient than the same man riding a horse.

      This is why the invention of the bicycle was such a stunning technological step that transformed society even before the advent of the motor car. The first smooth paved roads were made for the bicycle. The cars uspurped them.

      KFG

    2. Re:Bicycle by vought · · Score: 3, Informative

      Apple had a higher-ed program for equipping labs with Macs in the late 1980s and early 1990s called "Wheels for the MInd".

      The Susan Kare-style logo at the top of the WotM letterhead was the same featured in the Folklore site. Pretty cool, if you ask me. Still cool, even if you don't.

    3. Re:Bicycle by yiantsbro · · Score: 3, Funny

      "...adapted to this enviroment and so efficeint in flight that it can sleep while so soaring."

      Yes, but can they do it while nursing a series of gin and tonics like human airline pilots :) I think not...

    4. Re:Bicycle by kfg · · Score: 5, Informative

      Still haven't been able to dig that one up. I've got some graphs here comparing human power output to that of a horse, but that's a horse of a different color.

      On the other hand if you've done any riding of both it's surprising at first, but reflection bears it out.

      If you try to sit on a horse like you do on a chair you'll get pounded to death. Your butt will turn to hamburger, your spine will get crunched (forensic examination of Custer's troops showed spinal degredation even among teenagers as I recall). You have to lift yourself up and down in stirrups in rythmn with the horse. Saves your butt and spine, but until you've done a fair amount of riding you'l come home with your legs aching. Riding a horse is a lot of work. This is why the genteel class prefered the surrey. Even if, for some reason, you choose to sit like a sack and take the pounding you'll burn a fair number of extra calories in the process. Riding a horse works all the muscles of the body, each burning calories, no matter how slightly.

      On a bicycle you can simply sit; only the legs are really using extra calories; and fairly gentle pressure on the pedals will give you 8 mph or so on the level. Grandma can do this and keep it up all day. 12 mph is the speed a man with virtually depleted sugar stores can ride all day (although he won't enjoy it very much). An expert can ride at 15 mph until he falls asleep if he eats normally(the record average speed for crossing the US coast to coast is 15.3 mph, that average includes all downtime such as for sleeping. The clock started in California and stopped in Atlantic City NJ).

      I have to note that all of this is highly speed dependant. For instance, it takes a world class athlete (horse or man) to hit 40 mph, but the jockey of a horse galloping at 40 mph is probably working at about the rate of a bicyclist going 20 mph; about .2 hp ( watch a horse race on the tube, the jockey ain't just sitting there), whereas it's obvious that a man on a bicycle going 40 mph is pushing the very limits of human capability. (I'll note though that American professional cyclist Jackie Simes III beat a trotter in a race at Saratoga Springs. I've ridden a bicycle race on the same track. Trust me, the horse was at the advantage here. I never, ever want to race a bicycle on a horse track again)

      The bicycle is at the disadvantage going uphill or into the wind. On the other hand riding a bicycle downhill requires very little energy while riding a horse downhill requires more human energy.

      None of it is very straight forward and thus the claim that a man on a horse uses more energy than a man on a bicycle is provisional based on the conditions.

      As I recall the figure I have is for a horse at a trot of about 8 mph (which is why I chose that figure above) and a man bicycling at the same speed on the level in still air.

      The man on the bicycle will be expending about .03 horsepower, barely more than walking to the fridge.

      Yeah, in the mid 70s I was a bicycle researcher, which is why I have that chart, and why it is "somewhere," although I concentrated more on dynamics.

      KFG

  3. Apple history by Kris+Thalamus · · Score: 5, Informative

    A model by model Apple history can be found here.

    1. Re:Apple History by Artifex · · Score: 2, Funny
      2000 - Apple is Dying

      2004 - Err, Ipod might save 'em


      Now with BSD, they'll be dying faster, right? Or longer :)
      BSD's been dying since I was a kid.
      --
      Get off my launchpad!
  4. Folklore by mad.frog · · Score: 2, Interesting

    "As a plus, Hertzfeld notes in the faq that the python code running the well-designed and easy to navigate site will be made public in the near future."

    Cool. This looks like a neat software setup for a website. I'll be interested in trying it out after it gets released.

  5. A little more history... by Jon+Abbott · · Score: 4, Informative

    Andy Hertzfeld is one of the guys who helped design the original Mac, and also one of the people behind Eazel, the GNOME UI polishing group. Eazel was the group that contributed Nautilus file manager to GNOME. Strangely, Eazel's webpage now displays jibberish...

    --
    Slashdot's first reaction to VMware
  6. Interpreted code and high volume traffic by commbat · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "As a plus, Hertzfeld notes in the faq that the python code running the well-designed and easy to navigate site will be made public in the near future."

    Shows if you want to run a site written with an interpreted language and expect Slashdot level interest, you'd better be running it on one hell of a monster machine.

    Sheesh!

    --
    'Intellectual Properties' are uncontrollable in the wild. To base an economy on them is just stupid.
  7. Why is Apple's UI so much better than the rest? by ObviousGuy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I think it boils down to the core concept that "users do not want to use a computer". From this leads designers to think of ways of alleviating redundancies and mundanity and in its place add comfort and features. The Mac UI really was a significant milestone for computers when it was first introduced. The GUI concept was a long time in coming and the Mac was so far ahead of the rest that it is only the lack of business acumen of the folks at Apple that hampered such a revolutionary product.

    Even today the interface is still significantly different and better than the alternatives. The concept of only a single window frame with a single menu bar at the top of the screen is easy for new users to grok. The reduction of mouse buttons to one makes such things as "Press the right-click... nono the button on the right... no, don't double click it, only click it once... no, press Control-Z to undo that... no, just stop touching the computer until I can come over, mom" a thing of the past. Who would have thought that a seemingly backwards step as the single mouse button would be such a revolutionary step forward for computing?

    It's almost like Apple has sucked all the brainpower out of Silicon Valley and packed it all into their Macintosh line. I have never owned a Mac, but I have many friends who do and who constantly rave about how much they love it. And I believe deep down that the reason they love it so much is because fundamentally they hate computers, but their Mac behaves unlike any other computer out there. It does its job and gets out of the way, unlike other operating systems which force you to spend half your time fiddling with screen refresh rates and Config menus just to get down to your real business.

    --
    I have been pwned because my /. password was too easy to guess.
    1. Re:Why is Apple's UI so much better than the rest? by Becho62282 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I think one of the reasons Apple's UI's have always been favored by their users is their simplicity, and at the same time their high level of sofistication.

      Making a UI easy enough for a first time user to just turn the machine on and instantly have things act like they would like them to, or expect them to has always been a feature that Windows never accomplished. I remember sitting and using a Mac for the first time when I was 6 (in 1990) and I didn't need any help from our teacher to use it (no comp at home till later). It just worked and acted like I thought it should. My first Windows experiece was Win3.1 in '94 and that peice of junk just stank. My comp at home by that point was using Mac OS 7.1 and functioned amazingly while this Win3.1 thing was barely useable.

      As I grew up and PC's did too eventually Windows came to being a fairly useful OS, while it still seems to fail miserably with it's UI, it has gotten some things right. Apple has responded with the greatest UI I have ever experienced on any platform, Windows, *nix, Mac. OS 10.3 is just amazing, it's slick, user friendly, colorful (but not cheezy), and best of all IT WORKS!

      The thing that Apple has done with it's UI is amazing, it has changed with the landscape of the computing world, and always been the forefront of what every other UI seems to want to become. Sadly for the average user (aka Windose drones) they won't get to see an interface this user friendly ever. Apple just keeps pushing forward the computing experience for people, and I am glad people are starting to finally take notice

    2. Re:Why is Apple's UI so much better than the rest? by prockcore · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The reduction of mouse buttons to one makes such things as "Press the right-click... nono the button on the right... no, don't double click it, only click it once... no, press Control-Z to undo that... no, just stop touching the computer until I can come over, mom" a thing of the past.

      First of all, Apple invented the double click, which totally breaks the motif that Apple intended to create with the introduction of the mouse.

      Secondly, by getting rid of the right mouse button, Apple introduced things such as "control click.. no, control, not option.. no, not alt.. control.. yeah" You will never convince me that control clicking, or click-and-hold (which doesn't even work outside of the finder) is an adequate replacement for a second mouse button.

      Of course you can plug in a multibutton mouse into the mac and it works, this doesn't help people with laptops.

      The lack of a right mouse button and a scrollwheel on mac laptops makes things very frustrating.. and we have to resort to installing things like SideTrack to do things with the touchpad that PC touchpads do by default.

      In fact, Apple should just integrate SideTrack into the OS, or add a damn scrollwheel.

      Don't forget other UI disasters Apple is responsible for like Home and End keys that never seem to do what you expect.

      For example, in Safari, I expect that when I'm editing a text field, if I hit home, the cursor should move to the beginning of the field, not scroll to the top of the page. If I'm selecting emails in mail.app, hitting up and down selects the next and previous emails, but hitting home doesn't take me to the top of the email list, it scrolls the currently selected email.

    3. Re:Why is Apple's UI so much better than the rest? by Riktov · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The reduction of mouse buttons to one makes such things as "Press the right-click... " a thing of the past. Who would have thought that a seemingly backwards step as the single mouse button would be such a revolutionary step forward for computing?

      Although for most users at the time, who had never before seen any mouse, let alone a three-button Xerox Alto or two-button Microsoft mouse, the Mac one-button was the first and original. Let's just say it was Microsoft's seemingly revolutionary two-button mouse (or more to the point, windowing environment,) that turned out to be a backwards step.

      Nonetheless, could you live without the scroll-wheel? You must admit that's a worthwhile innovation, and it's astounding that Apple still hasn't appropriated it.

      The concept of only a single window frame with a single menu bar at the top of the screen is easy for new users to grok.

      Sorry, I have always considered this a confusing, bad design. It's a relic of single-tasking from the original Mac OS. The problem is that it's not just a single window frame. In the original Mac with single-tasking, the desktop was monopolized by a single app, even though that app might have multiple windows. But with multitasking, all the windows from different programs are on the desktop, yet there is no visual mapping from the menubar to its associated windows in the foreground program.

      Fitt's law be damned, in a windowing GUI, a window defines the territory of a program, and that's where everything should fit.

    4. Re:Why is Apple's UI so much better than the rest? by typhoonius · · Score: 4, Informative

      Don't forget other UI disasters Apple is responsible for like Home and End keys that never seem to do what you expect. For example, in Safari, I expect that when I'm editing a text field, if I hit home, the cursor should move to the beginning of the field, not scroll to the top of the page. If I'm selecting emails in mail.app, hitting up and down selects the next and previous emails, but hitting home doesn't take me to the top of the email list, it scrolls the currently selected email.

      Use Command+Left to go to the beginning of a line or Command+Right to go to the end of a line. Alt+Left and Alt+Right skip words. It's not a bad system necessarily, just one you aren't used to.

    5. Re:Why is Apple's UI so much better than the rest? by prockcore · · Score: 2, Interesting

      But with multitasking, all the windows from different programs are on the desktop, yet there is no visual mapping from the menubar to its associated windows in the foreground program.

      This is true. The single menu bar does save space, and it is consistent (two bonuses in my book), but it does feel like it isn't part of the app. I think that most users forget the menu is even up there.

      To many people, the toolbar has become the menubar.. originally the toolbar was a place to put the most common things from the menubar, but now it has become a place to jam everything. The menubar has become almost completely redundant.

      It also violates HIG which says that UI elements shouldn't ever be context sensitive. i.e. a button shouldn't disappear and reappear based on what you are doing (it should grey out instead).

    6. Re:Why is Apple's UI so much better than the rest? by sapporo · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Sorry, I have always considered this a confusing, bad design.

      IMHO, there's more to that design decision that you think. The fact that the Mac's menu bar is placed at the top of the screen makes it a lot easier to point at with the mouse, because you simply cannot move the mouse pointer too far. This makes it far superior in terms of usability that Windows-style menus at the top of each window.

      For more details, I recommend reading "The Humane Interface" by Jef Raskin. UIs should be based on scientific usability studies, not developers' tastes - that's what Gnome and KDE suffer from.

    7. Re:Why is Apple's UI so much better than the rest? by Bones3D_mac · · Score: 5, Insightful
      "Sorry, I have always considered this a confusing, bad design. It's a relic of single-tasking from the original Mac OS. The problem is that it's not just a single window frame. In the original Mac with single-tasking, the desktop was monopolized by a single app, even though that app might have multiple windows. But with multitasking, all the windows from different programs are on the desktop, yet there is no visual mapping from the menubar to its associated windows in the foreground program."

      There is good reason for the way the Mac OS handles itself the way it does. While it would seem like a good idea to contain all parts of a program within a single window, there are several problems with this... many of which become very confusing to the end user.
      • Too many menus!

      • As the user begins opening more and more applications, it takes longer for the user to find the correct menu among several windows. Going by the Human Interface Guidelines, a single menu on the screen reduces the time needed to locate the correct item. The menu also identifies the currently active application by displaying the application name/icon within itself.

      • Where did my menu go?

      • By making the menu part of the window, the menu is forced to travel around the screen with the window, unless the window is maximized to full screen. By locking the menu into a single, isolated place on the screen, it causes the interface to become much more predictable for the user. Predictability equals efficiency.

      • How do I create a new document after closing the last one, without having to relaunch the entire application?

      • With a menu stored entirely within a window, you can't... unless your application displays windows within other windows. Under the Human Interface Guidelines, this isn't an issue. The app continues running until the user decides to kill it himself. As applications get bigger over time, so does their load time. The time wasted per year by creating a new instance of an app each time the user mistaken closes the previous document when he meant to create a new document, could add up to hours or even days worth of time.
      There are other issues, but these are the major ones that tend to cause the most trouble. This is not to say there aren't problems with the Mac OS in it's current form though. For whatever reason, Apple apparently did away with most of the Human Interface Guidelines somewhere between Mac OS 8 and Mac OS X. As a result, things are now much more complicated than they need to be. So, if there is a problem with something in Mac OS 9/Mac OS X, blame Apple... not the Human Interface Guidelines they should have been following.
      --


      8==8 Bones 8==8
    8. Re:Why is Apple's UI so much better than the rest? by Pyrometer · · Score: 2, Insightful
      The concept of only a single window frame with a single menu bar at the top of the screen is easy for new users to grok.

      Sorry, I have always considered this a confusing, bad design. It's a relic of single-tasking from the original Mac OS.

      I always thought this myself comming from the Windows land, however, think of it this way ...

      It is a multi-tasking OS, however, as a user you can only interface with one thing at a time. Hence you can only interfact with a single menu item no matter how many menu items are displayed on the screen. Therefore, the fact that there is only a single menu item is a moot point.

      In regards to the "visual mapping", that is why it is a standard on the Mac to have the application name as the first entry in the menu item. It gives you that visual mapping so to speak ... off course it is generally obvious which application you are working with in any case.

    9. Re:Why is Apple's UI so much better than the rest? by JabberWokky · · Score: 3, Informative
      Interesting. I use KDE, which can either do a Mac style menu across the top or menus-in-apps. Here's an interesting point:

      On my desktop, I use xinerama, either two or three monitors (I have gone as high as five in the past). I use menus-in-apps (aka Windows style). I load many many apps and have them spread out all over the place. I also tend to open new URLs in new windows.

      On my laptop, I use a single 1024x768 monitor. I use menu-at-top (aka MacOS style). I load only a few apps, and have them all maximized (in general). I tend to use tabbed browsing significantly more.

      In both I use Konsole (the KDE terminal app) in a uniform manner... lots of tabs, a primary shell, a root shell, and then several task shells. I use the second desktop in both as a place to kick windows that either are running "in the background" (conceptually, a la xmms) or interesting tangents that I ran across while working on a task (web pages found while googling for something else, half finished documents I was working on, etc).

      I also used to be an emacs kinda guy, and now I use vi. I use Kate often as well (the file sidebar is very handy for making small changes to many files).

      It's interesting, because the menubar difference is very natural, and I move back and forth with no difficulty. I can't recall the last time I hunted for the menu with a false start. For the single screen, MacOS style is the best, especially with a eraserhead mouse. For many screens, Windows style is better because I don't have to move across several monitors to hit a menu.

      --
      Evan

      --
      "$30 for the One True Ring. $10 each additional ring!" -- JRR "Bob" Tolkien
    10. Re:Why is Apple's UI so much better than the rest? by mdwh2 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      How do I create a new document after closing the last one, without having to relaunch the entire application? With a menu stored entirely within a window, you can't... unless your application displays windows within other windows. Under the Human Interface Guidelines, this isn't an issue. The app continues running until the user decides to kill it himself. As applications get bigger over time, so does their load time.

      Actually this is something that caused me trouble on MacOS - I kept feeling that when I'd closed all the application's windows, and it was no longer visible, that the application should have closed. Instead I had to remember to manually exit them. Maybe waiting a second for an application to load is annoying, but no more so than an application unnecessarily consuming resources, and I find it preferable to not have to make it quit myself, which would usually take more time than reloading the application (and indeed, it seems to go against Apple's philosophy of "doing things for the user whether they ask to or not").

      Alternatively, the method of having a "main" window that remains open when all the document windows have closed works okay, and gives you a clear visual sign that the application is still running.

      Still, I agree that menus at the top of the screen is much better for various reasons (the Amiga did one better on menus, in that you could keep the menu open with the right mouse button whilst you could select - or unselect - multiple items with the left button, instead of having to open the menu several times).

    11. Re:Why is Apple's UI so much better than the rest? by This+is+outrageous! · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Fitt's law be damned, in a windowing GUI, a window defines the territory of a program, and that's where everything should fit.

      That's exactly what the Mac does, once you understand that part of that window (viz. the menu bar) is conveniently placed at the top of the screen. What they did, you see, is go past your preconception that a "window" has to be connected.

      --
      This is...

      O
      U
      T
      R
      A
      G
      E
      O
      U
      S

      !

  8. iPods predicted in 1984? by ObviousGuy · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I was watching CNN the other day and they were doing a small segment about the Mac anniversary and showed the 1984 commercial. It was the first time I noticed this, but the running girl seems to be wearing an iPod on her hip.

    --
    I have been pwned because my /. password was too easy to guess.
    1. Re:iPods predicted in 1984? by mr100percent · · Score: 4, Interesting
      The 1984 adhas been sorta re-released by Apple, with the iPod added in. Looks like a pretty good post-addition, doesn't look very obvious of an edit.

    2. Re:iPods predicted in 1984? by ObviousGuy · · Score: 2, Funny

      Heh. Now if they showed Big Brother heaving a hammer at her first and her ducking out of the way quickly before she shoots back, then it would be perfect!

      --
      I have been pwned because my /. password was too easy to guess.
    3. Re:iPods predicted in 1984? by the+JoshMeister · · Score: 3, Informative

      So you can compare, here's a link to the original commercial, which you can see didn't have an iPod in it. ;o)

      (As has been mentioned, Apple digitally added the iPod in the 2004 version of the commercial.)

      --
      the JoshMeister on Security
    4. Re:iPods predicted in 1984? by Radon+Knight · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Does anyone know of a site where you can download the movie and save it to disk? The ad was, I believe, directed by Ridley Scott (of Alien and Blade Runner), so I'd like to keep a copy for myself.

    5. Re:iPods predicted in 1984? by unother · · Score: 2, Funny

      1984:

      Apple is at war with IBM. Apple has always been at war with IBM. Microsoft is our ally.

      2004:

      Apple is at war with Microsoft. Apple has always been at war with Microsoft. IBM is our ally.

  9. Re:MS co-founder? by Richard+M.+Nixon · · Score: 3, Informative

    Well, the site is /.'d, but is he talking about Bill Gates?

    I can get to it, it took a little bit to load but I got it now. At least the article that talks about the game.

    The game they are talking about is Donkey.
    (Somehow I doubt that's related to Donkey Kong.)

    It says the authors were Bill Gates and Neil Konzen, it was written in BASIC, poorly animated, and called Donkey because at certain points in the game a "donkey" appeared in the middle of the road and you would then have to quickly hit the space bar, or the game would end. (I'm guessing the space bar was for stopping?)

    That article also mentions that MSDOS was a clone of an earlier version of CP/M.

    --
    Nobody died when Nixon lied.
    I'm meeting you half way you stupid hippies!
  10. Re:MS co-founder? by javiercero · · Score: 4, Interesting

    LOL! Nice try at Troll dom. Actually it was Allen who wrote most of the code, and it was not DOS but BASIC. One is an operating system, the other one is a language. Actually Bill Gates did not graduate from Hardvar, and it got there due to family conections not sheer brilliantness (scion). Oh, and he claims he dropped out, officially he got in trouble with the administration because the machine him and Allen used to develope the basic code, a PDP, did not belong to them.. but rather the school. They actually moved the computer that was not their property to their dorm room, they used university property to develop a commercial language. Actually BASIC was not even their own invention, so they basically made a port of the language.

    DOS was not an MS product, they bought the code from a Seattle based company. As far as I know MS were in the compiler business before 1981, and I doubt Gates wrote a single line of DOS code, he definitively was not in any shape way or form the main architect/coder of DOS. And if you even had any remote idea about what you are saying, you'd know that the DOS that gates and CO. bought was a quick and dirty copy of CP/M-86.

    Gates may be a good marketer and commercial thug, he is by no means a decent coder. And BTW next time try harder, pulling a never existing article from Byte out of your arse is just too boring.

  11. I'll play devil's advocate by Torgo's+Pizza · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Okay I'll bite. Was Donkey.bas the greatest thing in the world? Heck no. But it isn't as bad as this article makes it out to be. Donkey was never meant to be a true game. It was friggin' demo. I remember running and thinking, okay that's nice. What else is there?

    There was plenty. The PC when it was first introduced ran all the Infocom games at the time. It ran Wizardry and all the Epyx games. Sure it wasn't as homey as the Apple II my friend had, but all the business were buying it.

    I'm opening myself up for -1 Trolls and Overrated, but the PC wasn't *that* bad. It's easy to take a swipe at Gates for something thrown together at the last minute. It's not like he was making Choplifter or anything. In the end, the PC's open architecture that led it to be the computer platform of choice. The C64, Amiga, Atari ST were all great gaming platforms but just couldn't keep up with the ever upgrading of the PC. The roots of today's Half-Life 2, Doom 3's and Counter-Strikes all have roots with that first PC so long ago.

    1. Re:I'll play devil's advocate by javiercero · · Score: 5, Informative

      Actually the PC was not "open" at all, IBM was not too happy when the clones started appearing.

      It was copied, that is for sure, but it was far from "open." A plagiarized design doesn't make it "open" in the same fashion that a blown up safe lock box is also an "open" box.

      And most of the games you mention have more in common with the machines you dissed than the actual original PC. I.e. most of the Doom engine was actually developed in NextStep, a lot of the 3DS software that game designers adopted in the 90s come from an Atari ST design program, most of the multi channel audio we know assume as standard was inspired by the Amiga (.mod's were the .mp3's of the 80s! :)), and on and on.... the PC ended up becoming more like the mac, the amiga, and the ST, not the other way around... to the point where current PCs have far more in common with those platforms in "spirit" than the original PC.

    2. Re:I'll play devil's advocate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It was copied, that is for sure, but it was far from "open." A plagiarized design doesn't make it "open" in the same fashion that a blown up safe lock box is also an "open" box.

      Um...no, it wasn't plagerized. The people who made the first clone were locked in a room and didn't come out until they finished their clone. All they did was pass the output of their design to people outside of the room who would either say whether the outout of the clone chip was the same as the IBM chip.

      IBM did themselves in by assuming that no one could make a duplicate of their design. Based on this assumption, they didn't bother to copyright/prevent people from making the motherboard EXACTLY like they did.

    3. Re:I'll play devil's advocate by kinnell · · Score: 2, Interesting
      In the end, the PC's open architecture that led it to be the computer platform of choice

      I think you'll find that it was IBM's name that made it the platform of choice - IBM had a reputation for business computing, therefore the IBM PC was a serious computer. It took a long time for the PC architecture to become open, and this happened long after the PC was the platform of choice.

      --
      If I seem short sighted, it is because I stand on the shoulders of midgets
    4. Re:I'll play devil's advocate by kfg · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The computer was open architecture. A collection of parts, with the capability of freely swapping those parts out for others from any vendor. Those parts themselves, such as the Intel chips, were freely available on the open market. Making an IMB PC clone is no more "plagerizing" than making a car would be.

      The BIOS was propriatary and it was the clean room reverse engineering of such that allowed the true clone.

      KFG

  12. Oh, that's why it's so slow.... by vought · · Score: 2

    I started surfing folklore.org earlier this evening and I was nearly finished reading everything when...

    Slashdot hit.

    I had an idea, so checked here withi 20 minutes, and sure enough, it was the banner story. Shit. I was almost done reading the whole story of Macintosh as interpreted by Andy H.

  13. Offtopic: python by Negative+Response · · Score: 4, Funny
    that the python code running the

    Site is terribly slow, it is running python all right.

  14. Nostalgic by CHaN_316 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Just looked at that site, and saw the 1998 iMac. I shuddered when I saw those awful hockey puck mice that Apple chose to include with iMacs. Worst episode ever....

    At my university, they replaced them pretty quick with *REAL* mice. (Yes, I risk of sounding like a troll... but you know what I mean if you've ever used one of those mice)

    But the Macintosh Classic brought back some fond memories of elementary school. I remember sitting in computer class, and the teacher would say, now double click on clarisworks, and then she'd lecture for about 5 minutes then let us use the program.... because clarisworks took that long to load.

    --
    "There is no spoon." - The Matrix
    1. Re:Nostalgic by unother · · Score: 2, Insightful

      At the risk of sounding like a troll myself, I wish to publish a quick defence of the "hockey-puck" mouse.

      The problem was ergonomics, and the manner in which most people hold mice, which is not ergonomically sound. The mouse is supposed to be held lightly, not tightly, the thumb on the left and third finger on the right (if right-handed), with the first two fingers resting atop it. When held this way, it works fine. You also find yourself much less at risk of getting "mouse-strain".

      Unfortunately, many people hold a mouse in a sort of "death-grip". The end result are those monstrosities that Microsoft comes out with (I like to call them WarMice) which are only comfortable when held in said manner! I believe Apple was trying to gently "re-train" people to hold the mouse in an ergonomically correct fashion. Unfortunately, "you can't teach an old dog new tricks."

      As a point of demonstration, I've never had a problem with those mice--but that's if, and only if, they are held in the manner I just illustrated. Try the "death-grip" approach and, well, you'll find yourself frustrated. [N.B.: Apple included "dimples" on the sides of the mouse as tactile feedback for this, as well.]

  15. Inside the Apple Studio with... Andy Hertzfeld by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    An interview with Andy Hertzfeld

  16. For those interested in Apple history... by the+JoshMeister · · Score: 5, Informative

    Here are several other great Apple history resources.

    Sites:

    Books:

    Other:

    --
    the JoshMeister on Security
    1. Re:For those interested in Apple history... by bhtooefr · · Score: 2

      Apple2History.org is also VERY good, especially if Apple I/II-era history is your thing. VERY light Mac coverage, but it was written towards the Apple II, not the Mac.

  17. It still is in Australia... by netsrek · · Score: 2, Informative

    It's the name of the Apple higher ed magazine here in Australia.

    --

    i don't read slashdot anymore.
  18. Liked DONKEY.BAS? by Dahan · · Score: 5, Funny

    If you liked DONKEY.BAS, try the all new Donkey .NET!

    1. Re:Liked DONKEY.BAS? by Riktov · · Score: 2, Funny
      From the page: Structured Exception Handling. This new object-oriented construct in Visual Basic .NET enables a highly robust way to handle run-time errors in your code.

      Hey, I don't want to catch() anything this Donkey throw()s!

  19. Re:Cheapest Mac by boaworm · · Score: 4, Informative

    I'm looking to get the cheapest Mac that runs Darwin.

    There is a difference between the cheapest Mac that runs OS X, and that runs Darwin. Darwin (the core) will run on a lot older hardware than OS X itself. For instance, you can run Darwin on the PowerMac 8NNN series, but dont try to take a retail OS X and install.

    Have a lookt at Low End Mac and Accelerate your Mac. Perhaps they can give you some kind of hint. Now finally, i'd just like to point out that if you indeed want to run OS X, keep in mind that the "minimum requirements", like 128MB ram, is NOT sufficient imho. My G5 even choked on 512MB :)

    --
    Probable impossibilities are to be preferred to improbable possibilities.
    Aristotele
  20. Close but no cigar for you! by rufusdufus · · Score: 2, Informative

    BASIC was written by Bill Gates, not Paul Allen. Microsoft was founded in 1975 and release its first product, BASIC in 1976.

    The original author of Q[uick and dirty]DOS was Tim Patterson who much later went to work for Microsoft in the compiler group. Bill gates did not work on the code.

    1. Re:Close but no cigar for you! by andyr · · Score: 2, Informative
      Bill Gates wrote a BASIC interpreter (for the Altair ??)

      Cheap shots aside, (Sir) Bill by all accounts did an excellent job of sqeezing it into a very small space.

      Credit where it is due.

      Cheers, Andy!

      --
      Andy Rabagliati
  21. Speaking of Apple History... by MochaMan · · Score: 5, Interesting

    They are responsible for what I am sure must have been the longest line-up in history!

  22. Uh, check the history books by Brataccas · · Score: 5, Informative
    I'm soooooo tired of people claiming Gates (or MS for that matter) created BASIC. The language and compiler were invented in Dartmouth while nine-year old Bill Gates was hundreds of miles away in his nice cushy private school in WA. Hell, even the original C reference pre-dates the formation of MS.

    As was mentioned by another poster, MS is a marketing marvel, but this myth about it's founders being technnical geniuses has just got to go. It scares the kids...

  23. Very early MS history. by rs79 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Bill Gates and Paul Allen wrote a ROM BASIC they sold to Altair/MITS, an S-100 CP/M computer with real neat switches and lights. Ironically it was written on a PDP-11 running what would ultimatly become SCO UNIX. The Altair was a neat machine, but no it didn't run Linux and no you wouldn't like to see a Beowolf cluster of them.

    Microsft DOS came from Seattle Computer Products QDOS; MS licensed QDOS-86, told IBM they had an exclusive (a lie) and the rest was history.

    QDOS was a bad clone of CP/M, which was written by Gary Kildall of Digital Research, which was sold to Novell which was sold to Caldera, now SCO. Gary originally worked at Shugart and, lucky devil that he was, ended up with a very expensive 8" floppy drive. He decided to write a disk loader for it, hence "Disk Operating System" or "DOS". The rest of us loaded software from casette tapes using the BIOS; disk drives were very evry expensive.

    Back in the day, Digital Reaserch sold Operating Systems and Microsoft sold languages. When DR decided to sell a langauge around '83 the rumor was MS retaliated by selling an OS. The motivation may be a myth, but it was a popular one back then.

    Gates pubilshed some undocumented Z-80 instructions in, I think, Dr. Dobbs. It was the last usefull thing he ever did.

    --
    Need Mercedes parts ?
  24. Mac information by aarku · · Score: 3, Interesting

    http://everymac.com/ has some good Macintosh information, specs, and history.

  25. Re:MS co-founder? by G-funk · · Score: 2, Informative

    Actually gates did write some parts of the early parts of dos, namely the FAT filesystem.

    --
    Send lawyers, guns, and money!
  26. Re:Bicycle - no surprise by JumperCable · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Then, one guy had this idea to measure how efficient a human being is on a bicycle. It was awesome, he was drastically more efficient, able to go further and without burning as many calories. It knocked the bird out of first place.

    No surprise they were enamored by the efficiency of a bicycle. After pounding on my old Apple II/e's keyboard through grade school & high school almost anything was bound to be more efficient. Those were keys of lead. Even an old-fashioned manual typewriter was easier on my hands. It definitly kept the phrase "pounding the keyboard" going strong. At least it turned me into a really good typist.

    Although I have to admit I was so fascinated by the thing at the time I really didn't mind. Graphical interface? Mouse? *Phhft* who needs 'em.

  27. SCO ownes all by houghi · · Score: 2, Funny

    Microsft DOS came from Seattle Computer Products QDOS; MS licensed QDOS-86, told IBM they had an exclusive (a lie) and the rest was history.

    QDOS was a bad clone of CP/M, which was written by Gary Kildall of Digital Research, which was sold to Novell which was sold to Caldera, now SCO.

    If MS-DOS is from QDOS, there will be some code in QDOS. QDOS is from CP/M so there must be some code from that in it as well. So some of the code was owned by SCO. Wich means that SCO ownes the code to all off MS codes.

    The real problem is not if SCO ownes MS codes. The problem is who /. readers are going to cheer for when SCO is suing M$ over the code.

    --
    Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
  28. So What Ever Happened To Burrell Smith? by Schwarzchild · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Anybody have any idea what happened to this wizard of the Macintosh?

    --

    "sweet dreams are made of this..."

  29. Site software by jez9999 · · Score: 3, Funny

    "As a plus, Hertzfeld notes in the faq that the python code running the well-designed and easy to navigate site will be made public in the near future."

    Great. Maybe Slashdot could consider using it...

    --
    == Jez ==
    Do you miss Firefox? Try Pale Moon.
  30. Re:Cheapest Mac by selderrr · · Score: 2, Informative

    Now finally, i'd just like to point out that if you indeed want to run OS X, keep in mind that the "minimum requirements", like 128MB ram, is NOT sufficient imho. My G5 even choked on 512MB :)

    I disagree. I run Jaguar on an old Bondi-blue G3 imac at 233Mhz with 96MB Ram !

    And it runs just fine. There's only a limitation in startup time (don't power it of : sleep it if you need to. Boot time is around 10 minutes) , most of the iApps (which are to big to fit on the 2GB harddisk anyway) and MS Office (to big also, but easily replaced by textEdit or shareware alternatives).

    I run my mySQL/PHP/apache test setup on it, my iCal, and my accounting. Perfect.

    --
    When will I end this grieving ? When will my future begin ?
  31. Apple History by tonywestonuk · · Score: 3, Funny

    1984 - Apple is Dying

    1988 - Apple is Dying

    1992 - Apple is Dying

    1996 - Apple is Dying

    2000 - Apple is Dying

    2004 - Err, Ipod might save 'em

  32. Apple let their UI experts go? by 0x0d0a · · Score: 2, Interesting

    For whatever reason, Apple apparently did away with most of the Human Interface Guidelines somewhere between Mac OS 8 and Mac OS X. As a result, things are now much more complicated than they need to be. So, if there is a problem with something in Mac OS 9/Mac OS X, blame Apple... not the Human Interface Guidelines they should have been following.

    I agree. I cannot figure out what motivated it. Changes could have easily been made without throwing the whole thing out.

    Anyone know what happened politically at Apple that resulted in such a change in UI design (from design-for-ultra-usability to design-for-eye-candy)?

    --
    May we never see th
    1. Re:Apple let their UI experts go? by MoneyT · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Anyone know what happened politically at Apple that resulted in such a change in UI design (from design-for-ultra-usability to design-for-eye-candy)?

      A need to sell. Apple had been promising OS X for many many years (not always in that name) and had failed to deliver. There were lots of high expectations, and when writing a new OS like this, it's obvious your first version released is not going to be up to par. As such, they needed something pretty. Something that looked astheticaly pleaseing to offset the lack of comfort from a sub-par version. And so they generated OS X without a lot of the HIG and a lot of flare. And it worked. You'll notice that the flare has over the past revisions been toned down, and the usability has come back. In all, it was a trade off untill they could get some really well optimized code.

      --
      T Money
      World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
  33. Another Advantage to the Global Menu by TimTheFoolMan · · Score: 2, Informative

    In addition to helping with the plethora of menus you've described, the Macintosh-style menu has a major advantage over the current Windows-style taskbar: Infinite height. More specifically, you cannot "miss" the menus by going to high.

    In contrast, you have to hit the correct horizontal range, but also the correct vertical range, both for Windowed menus, and for taskbar buttons. If you move a long-term Mac user to Windows, they will constantly battle with this, as they're accustomed to just mousing up to the top of the screen, clicking, and then just scanning back and forth to find the right menu.

    In Windows, this just is dramatically more challenging, so most users never develop that habit.

    Tim

  34. Moore's Law and the Mac by This+is+outrageous! · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Serendipity... Just yesterday I came across folklore.org via John Gruber by way of Rainer Brockerhoff who added this observation of Chris Hanson: in 20 years, from the Macintosh 128 to the dual G5, the specs increased thus:
    CPU frequency: 512-fold
    RAM: 4096-fold
    Removable storage: 1792-fold
    VRAM: 3066-fold
    Network speed: 4551-fold
    Mouse buttons: 1-fold
    Price: 1.015-fold
    i.e., they kept the price point.

    As it happens, while advising a friend on how much memory to buy in 2004, I had just looked at how Apple's nominal RAM stacks up against Moore's Law. Pretty much confirmed, if you ask me:

    1976: $ 666, 8 kB ( Apple I)
    1980: $1200, 32 kB (Apple II+)
    1984: $2500, 128 kB (Macintosh)
    1987: $2000, 512 kB (Macintosh 512k)
    1990: $1500, 2 MB (Macintosh Classic)
    1993: $1440, 8 MB (Macintosh Quadra)
    1998: $1300, 32 MB (iMac G3)
    2001: $1500, 128 MB (iBook G3)
    2004: ?
    --
    This is...

    O
    U
    T
    R
    A
    G
    E
    O
    U
    S

    !

    1. Re:Moore's Law and the Mac by ChibiLZ · · Score: 2

      The price went UP??? Macs are ridiculous. For each iteration of my computers, they usually get CHEAPER...

      --
      Don't buy WoW Gold! Make it yourself!
  35. Re:mod parent up, please. by kfg · · Score: 2, Interesting

    And before I was researching bicycle dynamics (didn't really learn much about bicycles, but I learned a lot about data acquisition since I had to scratch build all my testing gear) I was a kid in Vermont shoveling shit in exchange for riding time.

    Another reason the bicycle ended the reign of the horse. And all that shit happens because an idle horse burns fuel and requires maintainence, a lot of it.

    Bicycles don't run up $3000 dollar vet bills and then die anyway either.

    KFG

  36. This data isn't all positive by 0x0d0a · · Score: 2, Informative

    Steve Jobs is one of the best things to happen to the Mac from a marketing standpoint. He's also made a lot of frusterating technical decisions. This article from the same site describes how Jobs comes down heavily on the side of having Macs be closed systems, essentially simple information appliances that users should never touch or open up. He's not into clones, expandability, modifications, or any of that.

    And he's the CEO of Apple now, and sure enough, we get lots of all-in-one models.

    --
    May we never see th
  37. User testing by tgibbs · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The difference is that Apple actually tested out their user-interface features on users, rather relying up some designer's theoretical notions. This led to crucial insights like, "it's much faster to access a menu bar that's always at the top of the screen, rather than one that's at the top of a window." Like many aspects of human engineering, this is the sort of thing that seems counter-intuitive, because at first thought it seems more logical to associate the menu with the thing that it affects.