Slashdot Mirror


Top 10 Apple Flops

Kelly McNeill writes "Though Apple computer is known for some of the computing and technology industry's most notable innovations, its not as if the company hasn't also taken its lumps. Thomas Hormby submitted the following editorial contribution to osOpinion/osViews, which supplies us with his top ten list of Apple's (and some of associated partners) most significant flops throughout the company's history."

993 comments

  1. So much easier to knock down than to build up by Space+cowboy · · Score: 1, Insightful


    I suppose it's inevitable that (with the current flurry of Apple success stories) someone would come up with a list of things they got wrong. Wonder if he's an Apple fan, or if their current success is eating at his liver...

    Show me a single computer company (hell, any company) that's been around for 25 years or so and hasn't made any mistakes. To succeed, you have to play the game, and playing is a risk.

    So they screwed up a few times. So what ? I'd actually be defending MS on the same charge, even though I despise their OS. Linux has screwed up badly now and then as well - brown bag releases aren't unknown after all...

    I just think it's a bit sad to concentrate on someone's failures. It seems such an ... inadequate... response to someone/thing doing well.

    Simon.

    --
    Physicists get Hadrons!
    1. Re:So much easier to knock down than to build up by realdpk · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I just think it's a bit sad to concentrate on someone's failures.

      I think if you were to look over the last few years of posts on slashdot, regarding Apple, you'd see that "we" have been concentrating on their successes, with very few exceptions. I don't think an article that will probably generate interest for a few hours will do Apple's rep any harm.

    2. Re:So much easier to knock down than to build up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      When Apple was down and Microsoft was up, who was always bitching about how crappy PCs are? Apple fanatics, that's who.

    3. Re:So much easier to knock down than to build up by MyLongNickName · · Score: 1

      "It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; because there is not effort without error and shortcomings; but who does actually strive to do the deed; who knows the great enthusiasm, the great devotion, who spends himself in a worthy cause, who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement and who at the worst, if he fails, at least he fails while daring greatly. So that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory nor defeat."

      Theodore Roosevelt quotes (American 26th US president (1901-09), 1858-1919)

      And it applies to Microsoft critics as much as Apple critics.

      --
      See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
    4. Re:So much easier to knock down than to build up by Space+cowboy · · Score: 1

      I was talking about the original article, not the posting on /. Besides, after posting on /., it'll have generated a few seconds of interest anyway. Nuke indeed :-)

      I'm not trying to say that Apple oughtn't be criticised for its failures, but to make an article up "All the things Apple did wrong" seems a little OTT, and I expect it's a reaction to all the "Apple success story" articles that have been published recently, not just on /.

      Simon

      --
      Physicists get Hadrons!
    5. Re:So much easier to knock down than to build up by mister_tim · · Score: 4, Informative

      Actually, if you RTFA, the author appears to be an Apple fan; I quote:
      "Thomas Hormby is a high school student in Nashville, Tennessee. He maintains two Mac history websites, http://www.mlagazine.com and http://www.macreate.net."

      So, it's not so much Apple bashing (although the editorial by-line does make it appear that way) as much as it is a look at some of the ideas that flopped: some were very good ideas not well implemented, others were just ahead of their time, and some were jsut bad ideas (e.g. Word 6.0 for Mac from Microsoft). Oh yeah, not every comment in there is against Apple - some of them are about Apple-related products.

    6. Re:So much easier to knock down than to build up by Mr.Progressive · · Score: 1

      He is a sick man. He is a spiteful man. He is an unattractive man. I think his liver hurts.

      --
      Okay, so a philosopher, a philologist, and a philatelist walk into a bar...
    7. Re:So much easier to knock down than to build up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wonder if he's an Apple fan, or if their current success is eating at his liver...

      Kelly McNeill is one of the biggest Apple fans out there. This is an exceedingly rare departure from gushing over everything they do.

    8. Re:So much easier to knock down than to build up by nomadic · · Score: 1

      Show me a single computer company (hell, any company) that's been around for 25 years or so and hasn't made any mistakes.

      Ben and Jerry's.

    9. Re:So much easier to knock down than to build up by ScrewMaster · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Still ... Apple was one of the early leaders, one who made some absolutely bone-headed mistakes that cost them the lead. Granted, Apple is one of the few survivors from the start of the personal computer revolution, a revolution littered with dead products and companies: the Commodore Pet, 64, Amiga, Ohio Scientific, Southwest Technical Products, Atari's 400 and 800, Franklin, the PC Jr., the various Radio Shack toys and many more ... all gone. But given the fact that Apple was there at the beginning (hell, the Apple ][ defined the PC revolution) they really should have come out on top, with Bill Gates relegated to the status of proud owner of a fifth-rate CPM clone. Bill Gates even told them how to do it! But between Jobs, Scully and Markkula, Apple failed to capitalize on their head start.

      Frankly, I'm still pissed at Apple for abandoning the Apple //e the way they did. About a year after the original Mac came out, I called up to order a replacement gate array for a //e motherboard. The person I spoke to wouldn't acknowledge that Apple Computer had ever manufactured an Apple Computer and instead recommended that I buy a Mac. They basically just dropped an entire product line and alienated a whole lot of users, many of whom promptly bought an IBM PC or compatible. So, yes, I think it is fair to slam Apple's decisions over the years. They're where they are now (a highly competent technically, but basically marginal player) because they blew it and left the market to Gates and the IBM-compatibles.

      And don't even get me started on the Apple //c.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    10. Re:So much easier to knock down than to build up by Colonel+Cholling · · Score: 2, Funny

      Ben and Jerry's.

      Like hell. They stopped making "Coffee Coffee Buzz! Buzz! Buzz!" and they named a flavor after Dave Matthews.

      --

      I am Sartre of the Borg. Existence is futile.
    11. Re:So much easier to knock down than to build up by Darkon06 · · Score: 1

      You make it sound like the author is bashing Apple. Look, not one place do they say "Apple Sucks, look at all this crappy stuff!" Its more of a look at the failures when the company seems to be riding one of its biggest success waves. You seem to think that looking at the negative side of things is horrible, its human nature... roll with it ;)

    12. Re:So much easier to knock down than to build up by murdocj · · Score: 1

      They didn't really stop making Coffee Coffee Buzz Buzz Buzz did they? My favorite dessert is a hot fudge sundae with that ice cream. As you eat your eyeballs roll back in your head.

    13. Re:So much easier to knock down than to build up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But does he know a damned thing about his illness?

    14. Re:So much easier to knock down than to build up by geoffspear · · Score: 3, Funny

      Great... someone who wasn't alive in 1984 is running two sites about Mac history?

      --
      Don't blame me; I'm never given mod points.
    15. Re:So much easier to knock down than to build up by dioscaido · · Score: 1

      I just think it's a bit sad to concentrate on someone's failures.

      Couldn't agree more. Now lets get back to M$ bashing!! :)

    16. Re:So much easier to knock down than to build up by Moofie · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Guess you haven't been around very long.

      The reason Apple gets credit around here (and believe me, they used to get NO love whatsoever) is because they consistently deliver kick-ass products. If I could read the article, I'd be curious to count how many of these "flops" were presided over by Mr. Jobs, and how many were the responsibility of the not-visionary CEOs Apple got beleaguered under.

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    17. Re:So much easier to knock down than to build up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Ben and Jerry's

      Nonsense. They've insulted and driven away half their prospective customer base by denigrating President Bush and insulting conservatives every chance they get. There's nothing wrong with taking sides, but be prepared to pay one way or the other.

    18. Re:So much easier to knock down than to build up by RGTAsheron · · Score: 1

      What exactly do you mean by a brown bag release?

    19. Re:So much easier to knock down than to build up by glassjaw+rocks · · Score: 1

      Oh man... This is really the funniest thing I read all day. Shame moderators have no taste, though.

      --
      -gjr
    20. Re:So much easier to knock down than to build up by Dan+Guisinger · · Score: 1

      I beg to differ. The iPod is being worked on by a different team, a different division. Its brought Apple their largest profits ever. And it has brought people who thought the platform was dead back into their stores looking at Macs.

      I think it was a brilliant accident. Steve jobs wanted to make the best MP3 player. He did not think the competitors would screw up so bad that Apple had 70% of the entire MP3 player market before releasing their own flash based player. Apple will have 95% of the MP3 player market by this time next year, and their computer market share is going to start increasing slowly.

    21. Re:So much easier to knock down than to build up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here's the deal. Everytime you defend Apple's ridiclous decisions on a public message board, Apple pays you with iTMS gift certificates. Furthermore there is a bonus program for articulate defenses of a single mouse button (I got 3 songs for saying that pressing CTRL is *better* than just having another damn button. And I don't even own MACs.)

      So you don't need to take his post seriously, because it was posted and moderated on behalf of Apple.

    22. Re:So much easier to knock down than to build up by Shannon+Love · · Score: 1

      Actually, Apple was still manufacturing Apple IIe's when I joined the company in 1992. You could only get through the education channel though.

    23. Re:So much easier to knock down than to build up by hawkbug · · Score: 1

      I think you're right on some points, however I highly doubt they will have 95% of the mp3 market... their flash based products are insanely expensive when you compare them to others on the market. The ipod is ok-priced for what it offers, while the ipod mini is going to die because of it's $249 price tag.

    24. Re:So much easier to knock down than to build up by Bilestoad · · Score: 1

      AND they stopped making "The Full Vermonty", which was a better flavor than CCBBB any day.

    25. Re:So much easier to knock down than to build up by antic · · Score: 1

      You should send this to IMDB and their list of the Worst Films...

      --
      'Thats they exact same thing a banana wrench monkey.'
    26. Re:So much easier to knock down than to build up by Gilmoure · · Score: 1

      Why would someone's politics have any bearing on doing business with them? Hell, I'm glad to support anyone who actually gets off their ass to try and improve something. Civic mindedness is sadly waning in this country.

      --
      I drank what? -- Socrates
    27. Re:So much easier to knock down than to build up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We still are.

    28. Re:So much easier to knock down than to build up by ferratus · · Score: 2, Funny

      No, no...that's linux fanatics. Apple fanatics bitch about PCs all the time ;-)

      (I'm both a linux and mac fanatic and I do use PCs and Windows quite a bit, so I feel entitled to say this!)

      --
      IP Therefore I am.
    29. Re:So much easier to knock down than to build up by digitalchinky · · Score: 1

      hyundai - I don't recall many mistakes from that company (excluding the car department). If they don't have it, they build it. I guess when you are that big, you can sweep your 'failures' under the carpet pretty much.

    30. Re:So much easier to knock down than to build up by Moofie · · Score: 1, Insightful

      No, you really can't.

      Of course, you are entitled to your opinion, and I am entitled to mine.

      There's no MP3 player on the market that's anywhere near as easy to use as the iPod. I can't imagine bothering with anything else.

      Love my Powerbook too.

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    31. Re:So much easier to knock down than to build up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      their flash based products are insanely expensive when you compare them to others on the market.

      I just *did* compare them to others on the market, and they're pretty much the same price, or less. Yes, there are some that come with built-in stopwatches and crap, but I don't need or want that. Some come with armbands, but the iPod shuffle comes with a lanyard that's good enough for me. (FWIW, I bought an iPod shuffle 512MB for $99, over a Rio Cali 256MB for $149. It wasn't a hard decsison.)

      The ipod is ok-priced for what it offers, while the ipod mini is going to die because of it's $249 price tag.

      Apple sold over 5 million iPods last quarter, most of which were iPod mini's. The Mini is a *huge* success, it is not dying. Maybe you don't want one, but a lot of people do.

    32. Re:So much easier to knock down than to build up by kerrle · · Score: 1
      They're not insanely expensive comparatively - you can beat the price online, but in most Walmart, CompUSA, and BestBuy stores, the cheapest players never get below $59 - I know: I was looking for a 128MB one this christmas for my mom. And at those stores, you can't get below $89 for comparable features.


      Yeah, you and I can buy online and get one a bit cheaper - but just a bit. I think the price point - especially for the 512MB - is quite nearly perfect.

    33. Re:So much easier to knock down than to build up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How sensitive can you be about a goddamn computer company? It's just an article which details some flops. Out of umpteen million articles singing the praises of Apple as if it were made out of angels' feathers. Get over yourself. So what indeed?

    34. Re:So much easier to knock down than to build up by hawaiian717 · · Score: 1

      The last ][e came off the line in 1994.

      --
      End of Line.
    35. Re:So much easier to knock down than to build up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't you dare fucking compare something like this to a trite and frankly bullshit argument between two camps of douchbags.

      You diminish everything meaningful when dragging it into a dispute little more sophisticated than an argument over Candy Land.

    36. Re:So much easier to knock down than to build up by crankyspice · · Score: 2, Informative

      Apple didn't stop production on the IIe until like 1993, almost a decade after the Mac was introduced. The push was for Mac sales, but the II line was still supported for many years; I bought my IIgs new in 1988 IIRC. "Apple II Forever."

      --
      geek. lawyer.
    37. Re:So much easier to knock down than to build up by PedanticSpellingTrol · · Score: 1

      Yeah, it's pretty shocking but the cheapest flash mp3 player in my local Wal-Mart is $89 for 256MB. The ipod shuffle is actually going to compete on price, is this a first for Apple?

    38. Re:So much easier to knock down than to build up by raehl · · Score: 4, Funny

      If he called them sites about ancient Mac history, would that make you feel better? Or worse?

    39. Re:So much easier to knock down than to build up by johnlcallaway · · Score: 1

      No single person or company gets ahead by having only successes, it's the failures and the mistakes that make us learn and improve. It's learning what not to do that makes us what we are. And the only way to do that is to understand failures, and what causes them. Sure, one can point and laugh at the misery of others. Or, one can understand the decision process that lead up to the failure and learn not to repeat them.

      Or, to paraphrase, those that do not study the mistakes of the past are condemned to repeat them.

      --
      I rarely read replies, it's my opinion and if you thought about your opinion a little more, I'm OK with that.
    40. Re:So much easier to knock down than to build up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Yeah. In other news, history professors who weren't alive during Rome's heyday are writing textbooks about ancient Roman civilization.

      In further new, my history prof actually WAS alive during Greece's heyday. Or at least he looked it.

    41. Re:So much easier to knock down than to build up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Haha

      +5, Kickass

    42. Re:So much easier to knock down than to build up by stupidfoo · · Score: 1

      Apple during the early to mid 90's was doing it's best to become just another PC clone. Remember the PC on a PCI card that you could add? Those horrible and huge beige boxes they put out? There's plenty in Apple's history that has been less than stellar.

    43. Re:So much easier to knock down than to build up by Moofie · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Uh huh. I had one of those beige boxes, and that PC card. (It wasn't PCI, it was Processor Direct). Great card: I played Wing Commander III on it years before the Mac version shipped. It worked beautifully.

      I liked Apple then. I like them better now. Go Steve Go.

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    44. Re:So much easier to knock down than to build up by msim · · Score: 1

      Firstly may i suggest you get back on the Zoloft.

      I tried to read this but with the carrying on line-after-line like that i couldn't get more than 3 lines into it without my brain turning to mush.

      --

      Life is like a box of chocolates, you never know when your gonna get food poisoning.
    45. Re:So much easier to knock down than to build up by einhverfr · · Score: 1

      What were the largest flops? And how fast can Apple make them? Are we talking about gigaflops? teraflops?

      IBM, Cray, SGI, Sun, etc. all have more flops that Apple ;-) We are talking teraflops.

      --

      LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
    46. Re:So much easier to knock down than to build up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please shut the fuck up. This is exactly the kind of post all the Apple fanbois need to hear. I'm tired of the all the Apple's shit don't stink posts.

    47. Re:So much easier to knock down than to build up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      good point

    48. Re:So much easier to knock down than to build up by lav-chan · · Score: 1

      I swear to God.

      It's a Roman numeral. The capital letter 'I'. Not a slash, not a bracket. An I.

    49. Re:So much easier to knock down than to build up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      Hey... there are people running museums about dinosaurs... what's your point?

    50. Re:So much easier to knock down than to build up by jeif1k · · Score: 1

      Show me a single computer company (hell, any company) that's been around for 25 years or so and hasn't made any mistakes. To succeed, you have to play the game, and playing is a risk.

      But the thing to remember is that some technologies were right on even 25 years ago: foremost UNIX and Smalltalk. Apple and Microsoft, effectively prevented them from catching on by dumping cheap visual imitations into the market prematurely without giving a hoot about the underlying technologies that made those kinds of environments easy to create and program.

      At least Apple has admitted their mistake, at least in their actions if not in their marketing, by throwing out the mess they created and moving to a UNIX workstation architecture with a stripped down Smalltalk-like system on top of it (Objective C) a few years ago.

      I just think it's a bit sad to concentrate on someone's failures. It seems such an ... inadequate... response to someone/thing doing well.

      Apple isn't "someone", it's a money-making enterprise. And it's good to mull over their failures and our part in them as customers (because Apple only exists because people buy their machines), and their effect on the industry.

      However, it isn't worth dwelling too much on them: in the 1980's, Apple was enormously influential in every aspect of personal computing. Today, they have a few percent market share, and while people love to copy the appearance of Apple software and hardware (Apple has good designers), no mainstream desktop platform is making an effort to copy their software architecture anymore (the closest you get is GNUStep). In terms of languages, the industry is moving to Java, C#, VB.NET, Python, Ruby, and in terms of frameworks and platforms, it's .NET, Gnome, Swing, and KDE outside Apple.

    51. Re:So much easier to knock down than to build up by TheOldFart · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Aston Martins, mamma mini-vans, and red-neck giant tires stupid trucks all serve the same purpose. They take you from point A to point B. There is a distinction between tasteful design, practical, and just bad taste. It's irrelevant if you cannot afford it. Just recognize the distinction.

    52. Re:So much easier to knock down than to build up by bsartist · · Score: 3, Informative

      That was pretty much Moofie's point - all of the things you mentioned were done after Jobs was fired, and before he was re-hired.

      --
      Lost: Sig, white with black letters. No collar. Reward if found!
    53. Re:So much easier to knock down than to build up by sydsavage · · Score: 2, Funny
      AND they freakin' sold out, man. Like, totally sold out, to a freakin' soap company, man.

      http://www.fool.com/news/foolplate/2000/foolplate0 00412.htm

    54. Re:So much easier to knock down than to build up by sydsavage · · Score: 1

      Actually, the people who type it with brackets or slashes are just referring to the ascii boot screen text, which used brackets on earlier models, and slashes on some later ones. Mine used to say "Apple ][+", if my memory serves after 25 years. If the machine referred to itself that way, I think it's ok for the nostalgics to use the nomenclature.

    55. Re:So much easier to knock down than to build up by distributed · · Score: 3, Interesting
      infact this reminds me.... just a few days ago i came across this page on wikipedia, when browsing for the apple Newton portable.

      Failed_Apple_initiatives

      atleast they learn from their mistakes unlike other wellknown companies.

      its pretty aptly titled.. could have made a better post than this one (which has anyway been slashdotted so i havent seen it yet).
      btw how well does wikipedia take to slashdotting ?

      vik

      --
      [all generalizations are untrue except this one]
    56. Re:So much easier to knock down than to build up by Agent__Smith · · Score: 0

      "Nonsense. They've insulted and driven away half their prospective customer base by denigrating President Bush and insulting conservatives every chance they get. There's nothing wrong with taking sides, but be prepared to pay one way or the other."

      Yep! And besides, they stopped making "FESTIVUS" which was the greatest flavor ever.

      --
      "It seems that we are at the age where life stops giving us things, and starts taking them away..." Indiana Jones
    57. Re:So much easier to knock down than to build up by malfunct · · Score: 1

      How is Word 6.0 for Mac a failure of Apple? Seems like it was a failure of Microsoft?

      --

      "You can now flame me, I am full of love,"

    58. Re:So much easier to knock down than to build up by batemanm · · Score: 1
      He also said better. His requirements for a product might not be the same as the design requirements that Apple used. Therefore Apple produce a product which doesn't quite do what he wants. Another company (B) could produce a product which provides precisely what he wants, therefore for him company B produces a better product.

      Personally I use an mp3 player when I go jogging, I wanted a solid state storage medium so it didn't die due to the shock. Also I listen to lectures/spoken word books when I go running. I don't want to listen to them several times so deleting them makes sense for me. For me an iPod makes no sense it uses a harddrive and has way too much storage space, I will never have that much data on it. For me there are better products than the iPod regardless of price. It just happens that the mp3 player I bought was much cheaper than an iPod. Better is subjective, someone else might think that what I bought was a piece of crap because it didn't have enough storage space.

    59. Re:So much easier to knock down than to build up by fishbot · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Look at Sinclair. Sir Clive is constantly mocked for his bizarre little ideas and failed concepts. However, that's not to belittle that fact that the Spectrum was arguably the best home computer of the eighties.

      Hell, look at the C5! A single person electric vehicle? Don't be silly! Oh, wait look at that Segway, and the thousands of little electric or small petrol engined scooters, or....

      When someone is successful and respected, a little light rib-poking is generally considered acceptable.

    60. Re:So much easier to knock down than to build up by Malor · · Score: 1

      Both the physical case and the ROM in the machine said Apple ][. Not 2, not II, but ][.

      Offhand, I suspect that's pretty authoritative.

    61. Re:So much easier to knock down than to build up by geoffspear · · Score: 2, Funny

      Well, it's rather difficult to find anyone who was alive when there were dinosaurs. On the other hand, around here you can't swing a dead cat without hitting 10 people with fond memories of the Apple ][.

      --
      Don't blame me; I'm never given mod points.
    62. Re:So much easier to knock down than to build up by DenDave · · Score: 2, Funny

      Yep triple platform here... and eh.. windows really does suck a frog out of a lemon on any day of the week. Linux only on alternate wednesdays..

      --
      -if at first you don't succeed, stay the heck away from paragliding.
    63. Re:So much easier to knock down than to build up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's right. Let's continue to concentrate on Microsofts failures instead.

    64. Re:So much easier to knock down than to build up by brainburger · · Score: 1

      Hey - don't call Roosevelt a douchbag!

    65. Re:So much easier to knock down than to build up by GuidoW · · Score: 1

      They have a number of squid proxies as loadbalancers before their actual webservers. When one of their articles gets slashdotted, the hit rate for this one in the proxies will be near 100%, which means they take slashdotting rather well, actually.

      (You can read about that in a bit more detail here: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_servers)

      But then again, Wikipedia is always rather slow nowadays, even if it's not being hammered.

      --
      If it's so secret, then how come I've never heard of it?
    66. Re:So much easier to knock down than to build up by lav-chan · · Score: 1

      Well, some of them did. The first one. It's not my fault Apple is retarded. :(

      And besides, didn't they (in an uncharacteristic stroke of common sense) allow both 'spellings'? Maybe i'm wrong, i don't remember.

    67. Re:So much easier to knock down than to build up by QMO · · Score: 1

      Whether I agree or disagree with their politics:

      When they drag their business into their politics, they have to expect the politics of others to affect their business. Civic-mindedness works both ways.

      --
      Exam 4/C again. Maybe I'll do better this time.
    68. Re:So much easier to knock down than to build up by codifus · · Score: 1

      Actually, by looking back now, perhaps it was inevitable the Apple lost the lead in the PC revolution. Apple's philosophy has always to have strick control over its hardware and software. Apple could not be on top without relinquishing some control. Remember the Apple clones? Apple tried and saw things unravelling so they stopped it. Look at Bill Gates and his Windows empire. He's number 1, but is Windows in full control of all the hardware it installs on? Is the synergy between OS and hardware as thorough as with an Apple machine? If you install software and get that dreaded "not digitally signed by Microsft" message, is it that big a deal? If you install Firefox to replace IE, does your Windows computing experience get worse? All in all, to be number one, a PC company had to make sacrifices that may have compromised their goals, and Apple was less willing to make those sacrifices. CD

    69. Re:So much easier to knock down than to build up by earthforce_1 · · Score: 1

      How quickly they forget the Apple III:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_3

      --
      My rights don't need management.
    70. Re:So much easier to knock down than to build up by tbase · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Come on, lighten up! Anytime Mac users talk about PC's, they aren't exactly singing their praises, now are they? Since the site is down, I can't be sure, but I would think it's just an interesting retrospective on the side of Apple not many people talk about.

      It's nice once in a while to be reminded that nobody's perfect, and despite failures one can be wildly successful. We're talking about an American computer company here, not our supreme dictator. I think we can poke fun occassionally.

      "I'd actually be defending MS on the same charge"

      So I'm curious, how exactly do you support yourself if you spend all day and night defending Microsoft on Slashdot? Or do you only read Apple related posts? I find it amusing that with all the negative MS and Gates stories on here, the second an even remotely negative Apple story goes up, first post is telling us how sad it is to "knock down" rather than "build up".

      The Lame meter is officially broken.

      PS- MacTV. Perfect example. We could have a very positive discussion about how far ahead of their time they were with that one, but it still remains a huge flop for Apple. Why must you assume flops are a bad thing? Hmmmm?

      --

      666-607: 6th floor apartment of the beast
    71. Re:So much easier to knock down than to build up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apple IIe doesnt use ASCII. In fact, the first mac to use ASCII was when running in OS X

    72. Re:So much easier to knock down than to build up by DarkVader · · Score: 1

      There were multiple versions. The one for the G3 (the last one Apple made) was a PCI card. There were also processor direct and NuBus cards for earlier machines.

    73. Re:So much easier to knock down than to build up by Badfysh · · Score: 1

      Hey! I've still got one of those huge beige boxes, and it still works well - unlike all the PC's I've had from the same period..

      --

      I was conned by an old man in a cloak. It turns out those *were* the droids I was looking for.

    74. Re:So much easier to knock down than to build up by Eunuchswear · · Score: 1
      And don't even get me started on the Apple //c.
      Ah, the Apple //c, that brings back fond memories.

      I got to test our serial I/O based application on a //c four days before it was to be shown in a booth at a big expo.

      Bugger, it didn't work. Why? The Apple supplied terminal emulator worked, why didn't ours? Much messing around, debugging, datascope.... Huh? They have programmed the UART for something crazy like 8 bits + mark parity (i.e. 9 bit bytes) and the code is removing the recieved parity.

      Turned out that all the internal clocks were being generated from one crystal, and when they changed the video from 60Hz to 50Hz for Europe they messed up the bit clock for the serial port. The crazy byte size was just enough (at 1200bps) to con the modem into working.

      On output the 9th bit was being seen by the modem as a stop bit, on input the stop bit from the modem was falling into the parity bit of the byte and being masked off by the code.

      So I had 1/2 a day left to re-write our 8 bit file transfer software to work in a 7 bit datapath.

      It took Apple many months to admit this, although they obviously knew long before they delivered the test machine to me.

      Thanks a lot JLG.

      --
      Watch this Heartland Institute video
    75. Re:So much easier to knock down than to build up by Procrastin8er · · Score: 0

      Unless of course your knocking Microsoft. ;-)

      --
      Slashdot - Where the slash is most definitely to the left.
    76. Re:So much easier to knock down than to build up by Junior+J.+Junior+III · · Score: 1

      Apple capitalized on their head start, but what they failed to do is monopolize. And if they had monopolized, we'd be complaining about them instead of Microsoft. In fact, given that IBM invented the PC architecture and no longer manufactures desktop PCs, it's quite likely that Apple would no longer be in the computer business and we'd be complaining about the legions of Mac clone OEMs that drove them out of business and clouded the vision that Jobs and Woz brought to the platform.

      --
      You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
    77. Re:So much easier to knock down than to build up by NatasRevol · · Score: 1

      I think you need to adjust your list...

      Check here

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    78. Re:So much easier to knock down than to build up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > I just think it's a bit sad to concentrate on
      > someone's failures. It seems such an ...
      > inadequate... response to someone/thing doing
      > well.

      You're a failure, and your posts suck.

    79. Re:So much easier to knock down than to build up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think they "blew it" dude. They just did their own thing. You know.. stuck to their guns. Jobs has a vision, Gates is motivated by greed and ego.

    80. Re:So much easier to knock down than to build up by glhmedic · · Score: 1

      As always it seems that the Mac fanatics can't handle the least amount of criticism.

    81. Re:So much easier to knock down than to build up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I swear to God.

      It's "I" for the first person subjective personal pronoun. Not i, not 1, not |, but I.

    82. Re:So much easier to knock down than to build up by thinkzinc · · Score: 1

      You know.. stuck to their guns. Jobs has a vision, Gates is motivated by greed and ego.

      That's priceless. Are you implying that Steve Jobs has a small ego and that he's not motivated by money?

    83. Re:So much easier to knock down than to build up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      while you are down there tossing Steve's salad, don't forget to give him a reach around fag. Ring of saturn? I'd think you know more about the ring of uranus.

    84. Re:So much easier to knock down than to build up by musichead · · Score: 1
      ...dead products and companies: the Commodore Pet, 64, Amiga...

      Living dead products on some of these... The Commodore company has been purchased, you can buy a brand new Amiga, etc...

      http://www.commodore.ca/news/2004/december.htm

      http://www.amiga.com/

    85. Re:So much easier to knock down than to build up by Dogtanian · · Score: 1

      However, that's not to belittle that fact that the Spectrum was arguably the best home computer of the eighties.

      Hey, I lived in the town where most of the Spectrums were built originally. The rubber-keyed speccy still pushes my "want" buttons in a way that later computers don't. It was wildly successful, and probably responsible for Britain's relatively strong place in the software development market.

      But that doesn't make it a good machine.

      What it *was*, was the first computer with true high-res, decent colour and sound at that price-point; the Vic 20 was more expensive and not as good (even its "real" keyboard wasn't that much better than the Spectrum's). Later computers were better specced and cheaper, but the Spectrum got there first; the popularity led to lots of software which made it more popular, which led to...

      But let's not deny that the single-channel, ultra-faint audio that held up the CPU was even at that time, poor (yep; the BEEP command was accurately named).

      And the graphics; yes, it had hi-res, albeit with a large border round the edge (256x192); but the colour was awful; partly because the palette was limited (black, white, red, green, blue, cyan, magenta, yellow, each in 2 brightness level). But mainly because of the ABYSMAL colour resolution (2 colours in an 8x8 square).

      In spite of the fact that at first glance, the Spectrum had multicolour hi-res graphics that could beat (e.g.) my Atari 800XL, the palette and colour resolution limitations (and there was just the one graphics mode) were *never* overcome.

      I *knew* my Atari was the better machine, but my jealousy of the (supposedly) multicolour hi-res and ability to swap games with everyone else made me want one all the same.

      And looking back on it.... urgh. Although I saw a clever trick which got somewhat gritty 6-channel sound from the 1-channel buzzer (later 128K speccys had the same 3-channel sound as the Atari ST; pretty decent), I never saw a game with any level of detail that didn't feature colour-attribute clash or day-glo colours.

      Of course, when the Spectrum was first released, most arcade-style games were against a simple or black background, and it did that fine. The problem came later, when games with lots of background detail were being created.

      For all its brilliance at the time, the Spectrum seems to have been remarkably resistant to improvements in its performance by clever hacks alone.

      The Atari 800XL's weakness was that it had the capability for sheer brilliance, but these were mainly in games designed around the machine's strengths, and by people who knew the hardware. Small market share meant that many conversions didn't use the Atari's custom tricks (palette change on each mode line, and mixed graphics modes on the same screen), didn't have much effort put into them, and often came out looking worse than the Spectrum/C64 versions.

      Yeah, the Spectrum was a great achievement when it came out. Yeah, it was a great success. But I doubt it was the best home computer of the 80s. It dated horribly and would not have remained so popular if it hadn't been for the large software base.

      Even the C64 is a better candidate for that award, IMHO.

      --
      "Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
    86. Re:So much easier to knock down than to build up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >> Show me a single computer company (hell, any company) that's
      >> been around for 25 years or so and hasn't made any mistakes.

      > Ben and Jerry's.

      I'll second that. Those hypocritical vermin that represent the true corporate face of American hippydom knew exactly what they were doing when they stopped using free range eggs in their ice-cream (because sales are more important than principles), then sold out to P&G.

      Fucking assholes. Someone should lock them in a 'new' VW bug (another supposedly hippy icon repackaged and sold (out) at an inflated price during the 1990s) and push it off a cliff.

      And by the way...

      Request to moderators: Mod down anyone who says "I know I'll be modded down for this."

      I normally try to mod based on whether the comment is any good or not; but since you're arrogant enough to request that others follow your rigid little vendetta, I'll mod your spoutings down on principle in future.

    87. Re:So much easier to knock down than to build up by Chanc_Gorkon · · Score: 1

      Um, Lessee....regular 1 GB USB drives are going for around 100 retail....add 50 and you have a shuffle. Not only can you use it for music but for files too. Want to try again?

      --

      Gorkman

    88. Re:So much easier to knock down than to build up by Chanc_Gorkon · · Score: 1

      IBM stil sells them...the Lenovo deal still isn't complete....yet...but noone makes thier machines here anymore except maybe final assembly.

      --

      Gorkman

    89. Re:So much easier to knock down than to build up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Apple ][ and ][+ used square brackets.

      The //e, //c, and //gs used slashes (following on the model of the Apple/// and ///+).

    90. Re:So much easier to knock down than to build up by Malor · · Score: 1
      I would very strongly suggest that you not state things as graven-in-stone fact when you aren't 100% sure that they are actually factual.

      The Apple //e and //c spelled it that way, with two slashes. As far as I can tell, the Apple 2 series never used Roman numerals. The Apple 3 may have.

      In real life, of course, 2, II, //, ][... were all perfectly acceptable. Everyone knew what you were talking about, and I don't think anyone cared which version you used.

    91. Re:So much easier to knock down than to build up by lav-chan · · Score: 1

      It's not my fault (whoever came up with that dumb idea) is retarded either....

    92. Re:So much easier to knock down than to build up by lav-chan · · Score: 1

      I didn't say anything was a fact. I know that the dumb logo uses brackets and that a lot of the writing uses brackets too. I don't know about the computer itself (because the Apple II is way before my time), but i do know that i have seen documentation that spells it 'Apple II'. I'm not sure if this is official documentation, though. I think it was. Apple III was spelt both ways, definitely. I don't know which one Apple preferred to use themselves though.

      In any case, i don't care what the logo or the ROM said. You're on Slashdot and it looks retarded to spell it that way. It's like typing 'Goooooooooooooooooooogle' because the stupid logo on the bottom of the page says that.... :/


      (I guess i realise that my habit of not always capitalising the word 'i' is probably equally annoying for people, as i've already seen, so maybe i'll just be quiet now.)

    93. Re:So much easier to knock down than to build up by Malor · · Score: 1

      Um, putting a declarative statement in bold print is about as strong an assertion of fact, in a short space, as one can make online. Particularly with an italicized "I swear to God!' right above it. (yes, I realize only God was italic, but that makes it a stronger assertion, not a weaker one.)

      I wouldn't be at all surprised if Apple used II in their documentation, they weren't yet the branding and control freaks that they became in later years. I didn't even think about the docs, I was just looking at the ROMs (via emulator) and the logos.

      The goooooogle on the bottom isn't a logo, it's a cutesy navigation tool. The logo is up top, and it's usually just Google, although of course they have fun with that on holidays.

      You may not like the use of Apple ][, but it is correct. I strongly suspect that you're not going to find ANY cases in the real world of using the product's actual logo to refer to the product as being demonstrably 'wrong'. Basically, you're trying to support a completely unsupportable assertion. You should just give up, admit defeat, and pay more attention next time around. :)

    94. Re:So much easier to knock down than to build up by Magius_AR · · Score: 0
      I just think it's a bit sad to concentrate on someone's failures.

      Oh man, I totally agree with you.

      So anyways, did you hear what those Microsoft screwups did in Redmond today?

    95. Re:So much easier to knock down than to build up by soft_guy · · Score: 1

      You are claiming you couldn't get an Apple IIe fixed in 1985. I call bullshit.

      --
      Avoid Missing Ball for High Score
    96. Re:So much easier to knock down than to build up by lav-chan · · Score: 1

      I was complaining about the general use of the brackets. I wasn't complaining that the use was 'wrong' (as in incorrect as far as branding), i was complaining that it's stupid, whether it's correct or not. It's like how some employees at id Software pronounce it 'eye-dee'. Authoritative, i guess, but they're still stupid.

      As far as the Gooooogle thing, whatever. GMail then. The logo capitalises the M, but you suck if you capitalise it in writing. ... I guess.

      And also, if you wanted to be a REAL pedant about it, it would be 'apple ][' (not 'Apple ]['), since that's what the logo says if i'm remembering right.

      And um, by the way, i just noticed something about what you said earlier. My Apple IIc Plus spells it just like that ('I's, not '/'s). Did they change the logo for the Plus?

    97. Re:So much easier to knock down than to build up by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      No, that isn't what I said. I just repeated what one Apple "support person" told me. Read before you call bullshit, softheadedguy. Besides, I think you missed my point. Apple did the same thing to the Apple //e's user base that Microsoft did with their DOS customers: i.e. they dropped them and left them for dead. It seems that if you're going to abandon a user base, the first thing you do is deny that you ever made the product in question.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    98. Re:So much easier to knock down than to build up by ProfKyne · · Score: 1

      Personally I use an mp3 player when I go jogging, I wanted a solid state storage medium so it didn't die due to the shock. Also I listen to lectures/spoken word books when I go running. I don't want to listen to them several times so deleting them makes sense for me. For me an iPod makes no sense it uses a harddrive and has way too much storage space, I will never have that much data on it. For me there are better products than the iPod regardless of price. It just happens that the mp3 player I bought was much cheaper than an iPod.

      Nonsense. iPod shuffle meets all your requirements (solid state, plays MP3s and audio books, doesn't offer too much space), and I bet it costs less than the MP3 player you bought.

      --
      "First you gotta do the truffle shuffle."
    99. Re:So much easier to knock down than to build up by Gilmoure · · Score: 1

      True, true. I still won't buy from Shell. Am pissed at their cavalier attitude towards the eco problems in Nigeria and the death of Ken Sarawewa.

      --
      I drank what? -- Socrates
    100. Re:So much easier to knock down than to build up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're abysmally stupid. If I were you, I'd kill myself.

    101. Re:So much easier to knock down than to build up by nomadic · · Score: 1

      No, no, don't you understand that's just liberal commie extremism. You're only allowed to boycott businesses if they offend conservative values.

    102. Re:So much easier to knock down than to build up by Gilmoure · · Score: 1

      What? I like looking at PlayBoy and Hustler in the news stands at 7-11, while sucking down an all syrup 7&7 Slurpee!

      --
      I drank what? -- Socrates
    103. Re:So much easier to knock down than to build up by batemanm · · Score: 1

      Nope at around £70 it is still more than twice the price on the one I bought.

  2. #1: The iPod by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    'cause, you know... NOBODY bought one!

  3. Cube? by nathanmace · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I wonder why the cube isn't on the list. Seems like it should be.

    --
    I'm very responsible, when ever something goes wrong they always say I'm responsible.
    1. Re:Cube? by llauren · · Score: 0

      Come on, the Cube was nifty. It just didn't sell well. If it was a flop, then it was a marketing flop, not a technological one.

      Thinking of it, you could recreate some of the cube spirit using two or three minimacs :)

      ~rL

    2. Re:Cube? by punkass · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The only thing wrong with the cube was the price. The cube should have been what the mini mac is now: a low priced gateway to the platform. Instead it was a really cool piece of hardware the reinforced the "Macs cost more" stereotype...

      --
      "Nobody owns the fucking words man." - James Dean
    3. Re:Cube? by Queer+Boy · · Score: 1
      I wonder why the cube isn't on the list. Seems like it should be.

      The Cube is what brought forth the iMac Flat Panel "lamp" and the Mac mini. It was more of an experiment that went awry than a flop.

      --
      Not since Marie-Antoinette played milkmaid has looking simple and honest been so fake and complicated.
    4. Re:Cube? by michaeldot · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The Cube, of which I have one powering my plasma 42" as a "photowall" and DVD player, was more a marketing flop than a technological one.

      Alone, or especially when combined with a still new and pricey LCD flat panel, it was perceived as very expensive for what it was - a miniaturized desktop with no slots.

      Petite computers hadn't been around for long (I think Shuttle actually came after, maybe in fact inspired by the Cube) and in the US market, the Cube was a radical approach going against the "gas guzzling SUV paradigm," where most male computer buyers still equate bigger with better.

      It also had a significant number of detractors in the press, who all gleefully reported the "cracks" (scratches on the lucite moulding for the first batch) as if the thing was going to split open like a lizard egg.

      Still, they sold 100,000, created a loyal following of uber-elite modders, contributed R&D to the iMac G4 and Mac mini, and were responsible for the coolest (pun intended) press release signaling its termination: "Apple is putting the Cube on ice."

      Not a total flop.

    5. Re:Cube? by loid_void · · Score: 1

      It's sitting in the museum of modern art. it's a collectors item, it's quite, and i have 2. shhh.

      --
      Anyone seen my jagged little pill?
    6. Re:Cube? by loid_void · · Score: 1

      Right now it's #6, in the top sellers on the apple site; not saying it will stay there, but it will be interesting to watch.

      --
      Anyone seen my jagged little pill?
    7. Re:Cube? by Gilmoure · · Score: 1

      Damn you! I only have one. But it does have a nifty blue glowing fan in it. I need to figure out how to install a lava lamp cell between the cube and it's clear outer case. ?hat would look cool!

      --
      I drank what? -- Socrates
    8. Re:Cube? by lastchance_000 · · Score: 1

      And here I thought we were talking about this

    9. Re:Cube? by MoneyT · · Score: 1, Insightful

      doubt it. The cube flopped for one reason and one reason only:

      price.

      Even for an apple, the cube was too expensive. But they still sell extemely well and are very popular.

      --
      T Money
      World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
    10. Re:Cube? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The NeXT Cube (forgive me if this is not what you are talking about) cannot be included in Apple's flops as it was not, as far as I remember, an Apple product. Steve Jobs formed NeXT Inc. after getting kicked out of Apple. The cube was a NeXT product released on October 12, 1988 and expensive is an understatement. I think it cost something like $6,500. And the NeXT Cube and Slab rocked. I should eBay my 'premire issue' of NeXT World magazine with Steve on the cover. Did Apple buy NeXT? Or is there an Apple Cube that I'm just ignorant of? There's got to be something missing or I would have expected folks to have already pointed this out.

    11. Re:Cube? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem with the cube was that they started R&D when the economy was hot, and they brought it out when the economy was cooling.

      If it had come out a year earlier, it would've been a bigger hit. That's my theory.

    12. Re:Cube? by LostPassword · · Score: 1

      My bad. http://www.wired.com/news/mac/0,2125,59764,00.html ?tw=wn_story_related .. there was an apple cube. Nevermind.

    13. Re:Cube? by IowaBoy · · Score: 1

      I had a Cube on my desk at work for several years -- perks of middle management -- and I have to say even running OS9 it was remarkably stable considering all the crap I ran on it. Typical load of running apps: Lotus Notes (notoriously fickle), Explorer, Quark, PageSpinner, Word, NewsEdit (a newspaper text editor) and some shareware mock dock I forget the name of. Maybe crashed once every couple of weeks, usually just a single app.

      As they unplugged my Cube, I thought to myself "Farewell Aquarius, and we thank you..."

      When I upgraded to OSX on a G4 tower, I pitched a fit to keep the cool 17-inch studio CRT monitor, the one with the clear plastic case, that came with the Cube. It's still the first thing anyone comments on when the come into my office. Best CRT Apple every made, and apparently the last.

    14. Re:Cube? by JamieF · · Score: 1

      I googled for this display and found the blueberry one first... I was like, WTF, this guy has horrible taste, that monitor is butt-ugly... damn.

      No. Wrong one. The clear one looks pretty darn cool. Too bad it's only 17" and discontinued. I wish they had made a 20" one, I'd try and grab one off of eBay just for the hell of it.

  4. Already slashdotted? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    appears so...

  5. Powered by "PostNuke" by bobetov · · Score: 3, Funny

    I love it. As perfect a description of a slashdotting as I've ever seen.

    Do you want to play a game?

    --
    Looking for a Rails developer in Chapel Hill?
    1. Re:Powered by "PostNuke" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, Dr. (obscure movie reference, don't ask)

    2. Re:Powered by "PostNuke" by Dorothy+86 · · Score: 2, Funny

      As long as I don't have to be the damn O's. I ALWAYS have to be the O's.

    3. Re:Powered by "PostNuke" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      Article text, karma whore free:

      "Though Apple computer is known for some of the computing and technology industry's most notable innovations, its not as if the company hasn't also taken its lumps. Thomas Hormby submitted the following editorial contribution to osOpinion/osViews, which supplies us with his top ten list of Apple's (and some of associated partners) most significant flops throughout the company's history."
      --

      Apple and its compatriots have been highly innovative. These companies have proven that even if their ideas are well implemented, they cannot always promote them correctly. Other times, a good idea is implemented poorly, and despite their best marketing effort, the product fails. I have compiled 10 of the most notable products released by Apple or its comrades that have failed.

      Apple Pippin

      Introduced under Spindler's rule as CEO, the Pippin should have won Apple a position in the console market, one Apple had yet to penetrate. Apple's goal was to make the Pippin a multimedia machine, capable of reading CD ROMs, surfing the internet and to play games.

      Apple had decided to share the Pippin's source code with developers for a licensing fee. The developers had a lot more flexibility, and would be able to redesign the Pippin's software to make it attractive for any number of markets. However, Apple was able to recruit only 4500 developers willing to pay the licensing fee.

      The operating system of the Pippin was based on the MacOS and with a PowerPC 603 running at 66 MHZ, the Pippin used a similar processor to desktop macs at that time. Being a multimedia machine, the Pippin was capable of producing CD quality sound, and displaying up to thousands of colors. With the powerful Power PC processor, Apple thrashed Nintendo and Sega consoles performance wise, but never won a sizable portion of the market.

      OpenDoc

      The concept behind OpenDoc is an intuitive one. Many elements of applications are redundant (calculators, multimedia players, spreadsheets). Why not 'cut them up' and use different modules interchangeably. Each file would then make calls on these different modules as needed. With OpenDoc, if a user wished to create a word processor document that includes a spreadsheet, the user would not have to copy it over as a table, or use a gimped up version included with the word processor. Instead, they could call up the ClarisWorks for OpenDoc Spreadsheet module and have a full-blown spreadsheet in the middle of a word processing document.

      OpenDoc development started in 1995 in collaboration with Novell, IBM and Apple. In 1997, Apple integrated OpenDoc into its core strategy, releasing several OpenDoc apps, and including the technology in Mac OS 7.6. At the same time, the technology was being developed for Windows and UNIX. The companies created the Ci Labs which would authorize OpenDoc components that proved to be compatible as "Live Objects".

      In accordance to Apple's vision, it became possible with the OpenDoc compatible version of ClarisWorks to create a document that integrated various OpenDoc modules. The example below has an integrated Video Conferencing session with QuickTime, a browser frame from CyberDog and a graph from another OpenDoc module.

      Since 1996, Novell has ceased Windows development of OpenDoc, forcing IBM to take on responsibilities for the platform at the same time they continued development on their AIX (UNIX from IBM). The two versions both evolved and were mature commercial products in 1997. There were problems for OpenDoc, however. At the same time, Microsoft released ann updated version of OLE, and released ActiveX, that closely mimicked the OpenDoc principles. OpenDoc was embraced by major OS developers, but it had failed to attract third party developers. Mac OS 8 was the last release from Apple to include OpenDoc, and it was quietly killed at the hands of Gil Amelio.

      Mac TV

      Apple was the first major personal computer manufacturer to release a machine with a bundled TV tun

    4. Re:Powered by "PostNuke" by Tackhead · · Score: 4, Funny
      > I love it. As perfect a description of a slashdotting as I've ever seen.
      >
      >Do you want to play a game?

      Ahem. That's "Shall we play a game?" to you, sir.

      Turn in your geek card. As mistakes go, that's a WOPR. (Slashdot is a strange game. The only winning move is not to play.)

    5. Re:Powered by "PostNuke" by snookerdoodle · · Score: 1

      "Problem in Database Connection"

      I guess that isn't Flop # 1...

    6. Re:Powered by "PostNuke" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uh, War Games? Fuck I'm old...

    7. Re:Powered by "PostNuke" by gnuman99 · · Score: 1
      Now it says: We're just too dern'd popular these days... We've had to take the site offline for some maintinence. Please bear with us and come back soon.

      ....hmm.... "maintenance"?

    8. Re:Powered by "PostNuke" by bobetov · · Score: 1

      Nuts. :-)

      --
      Looking for a Rails developer in Chapel Hill?
    9. Re:Powered by "PostNuke" by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      Dr. Stranglove, I presume?

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    10. Re:Powered by "PostNuke" by servognome · · Score: 4, Funny

      Slashdot is a strange game. The only winning move is not to play
      Shall we play a game?
      Love to. How about Slashdot Fanboy Flame War
      Wouldn't you prefer a nice game of chess?
      Later. Right now let's play Slashdot Fanboy Flame War
      Fine.
      Apple First Strike - WINNER NONE
      Microsoft First Strike - WINNER NONE
      Apple vs. IBM Hardware Scenario - WINNER NONE
      OSX vs Windows Software Scenario - WINNER NONE
      APPLE-AMD Alliance Scenario - WINNER NONE
      European Amiga Uprising - WINNER NONE
      Transmeta offensive - WINNER NONE
      MS-AMD Pact - WINNER NONE
      Opensource theater wide uprising - WINNER NONE
      Grammar Nazi hostility escalation - WINNER NONE
      IBM-SCO counterstrike - WINNER NONE
      Sun product announcement surprise - WINNER NONE
      Amazon One-Click Conflict - WINNER NONE
      DRM limited war - WINNER NONE
      Internet Explorer quick strike - WINNER NONE
      P2P crackdown - WINNER NONE
      Worm assault on Firefox - WINNER NONE
      Swedish viral attack on Windows - WINNER NONE
      China-India Outsource Pact - WINNER NONE
      Torvalds-Gates peace accords - WINNER NONE
      ATI Graphics card Domination - WINNER NONE
      BSD survival - WINNER NONE
      All out format war - WINNER NONE
      Programming Language Preference Battle - WINNER NONE
      Browser standards confrontation - WINNER NONE
      OpenOffice GPL dissention - WINNER NONE
      Missing Poll Option Discord - WINNER NONE
      Off-topic political rivalry - WINNER NONE

      --
      D6 63 0D 70 89 81 BB 8E 7B 7C 5F 5D 54 EA AB 73
    11. Re:Powered by "PostNuke" by Zoop · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I was on eWorld! I remember it being fairly empty, but the interface was very cool--much like what the Cleveland FreeNet was trying to do, but all GUIlicious. I also had my first experience with live chat, which was some 16-year-old kid who assumed my androgynous name was the opposite sex and wanted me to go into a private room.

      I've pretty much hated chat ever since, and from what I can see of IRC and AIM spam, things haven't much improved.

      It was eerie, though, how much it felt like AOL, which I was also on (being a refugee from the craptastic Prodigy).

      The frightening thing is, I still have an AOL account. Never set your parents' sites up on a non-portable system.

    12. Re:Powered by "PostNuke" by DarthWiggle · · Score: 4, Funny

      Congratulations, you beat the Internet. Three - three?! - WarGames references in a two-line comment... that's fantastic.

    13. Re:Powered by "PostNuke" by nwf · · Score: 1

      Me too! I was an eWorld beta tester (still have an old t-shirt somewhere!) It was VERY empty, but I found a few friends there. I stopped as soon as my beta ran out, but by then the writing was on the wall. It was well executed from a software and GUI perspective, though, and I think about it on occassion.

      Tip for budding entrepreneurs: don't try to crack the market by offering less for more.

      --
      I don't know, but it works for me.
    14. Re:Powered by "PostNuke" by John+Pliskin · · Score: 1

      I'd care more to know why it says to 'bear with us' then anything.

      $

    15. Re:Powered by "PostNuke" by 0m3gaMan · · Score: 1, Redundant

      This kid clearly did not suffer through the mid-90s, when the Internet was gaining popularity and the great shoal of idiots stormed computer stores to get a Mac "because I heard it was easy to use" and load up one of those ubiquitous copies of "American Online".

      I sold Macs the--along with their peripherals--for an awful (and now out of business) New England-based reseller. Along with inept and shifty-eyed management, we sales drones needed to suffer the Apple product line concocted in part by that former sugar-water selling guy and Gil Amelio. Herewith, a short list of the Apple products that always guaranteed heartburn:

      - the Apple Centris series. IIRC, had some bizarre 'multimedia' chip that disliked a large number of MIDI software apps of the day.

      - those horrible 6xxx series PowerMacs. When Apple made the slightest production change, they incremented the model number by ONE, quickly ending up with a mish-mosh of sluggish pizzaboxes that puzzled we salespeople almost as much as prospective customers. It turned explaining the product line into alphabet soup.

      - that horrible 'answering machine' contraption that Apple sold. Difficult for most customers to make work properly, and ate hard disk space.

      - eWorld. I think that was in the article. No need to floss a dead horse.

      - the stupid hockey puck mouse that was sold with the first wave of iMacs. Annoying beyond belief. How that thing made it out of the Apple ergonomics department is beyond me.

    16. Re:Powered by "PostNuke" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You forgot vi versus emacs.

    17. Re:Powered by "PostNuke" by yulek · · Score: 1

      where's the newton?????

      --
      in this age of communication i'm just not getting through
    18. Re:Powered by "PostNuke" by yulek · · Score: 1
      --
      in this age of communication i'm just not getting through
    19. Re:Powered by "PostNuke" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > that horrible 'answering machine' contraption

      GeoPort DSP? Certainly belongs on the list of Apple failures -- all sorts of crap was promised and never delivered.

      In comparison, the ThinkPad mWave actually was software upgradable from 9600bps to 28.8, despite it's other problems.

    20. Re:Powered by "PostNuke" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      No need to floss a dead horse.

      Even Dead Horses need good dental hygene, you insensative clod!

    21. Re:Powered by "PostNuke" by Foo2rama · · Score: 1

      yeah I expected it to be there too. But teh Newton in some ways was a huge success. Look what Palm did with the idea. The newton was just a little ahead of its time, and a little to early to have enough cpu power to do everything they where trying to do. Hence the change in handwriting recognition in the second model.

      --


      ---In a time of Chimpanzees I was a Monkey.
    22. Re:Powered by "PostNuke" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > You forgot vi versus emacs.

      It's because vi wins hands off ;)

    23. Re:Powered by "PostNuke" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Missed the greatest mistake -- Sametime as Original Apple Mac

      Why didn't Apple own the laser printer market? Because they could not imagine people printing only text -- Needed to have expensive graphic printers --> let HP own that Market.

    24. Re:Powered by "PostNuke" by uq1 · · Score: 1

      I beat the internet, the boss on the last level was really hard.

    25. Re:Powered by "PostNuke" by jb.hl.com · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      I can beat that:

      Wargames Wargames Wargames Wargames Wargames Wargames Wargames Wargames Wargames Wargames.

      There. TEN references in a THREE line comment. Owned.

      (Apols. to The Young Ones).

      --
      By summer it was all gone...now shesmovedon. --
    26. Re:Powered by "PostNuke" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "floss a dead horse"?

      Yikes. Pointless yes, but still easier than flossing a live one.

      Try "flog a dead horse." Still pointless, but lots easier than equine denistry.

    27. Re:Powered by "PostNuke" by diamondsw · · Score: 1

      Apple was the first major personal computer manufacturer to release a machine with a bun

      Read the rest of this comment...


      "Hot computer onna-bun! Hot computer onna-bun! I'm cuttin-me-own-throat at these prices!"

      --
      I don't know what kind of crack I was on, but I suspect it was decaf.
    28. Re:Powered by "PostNuke" by starglider29a · · Score: 2, Funny
    29. Re:Powered by "PostNuke" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      s/then/than/ !!!

  6. site already /.ed by all+your+mwbassguy+a · · Score: 4, Funny

    did they host this on a newton, a pippin, or an apple ///?

    1. Re:site already /.ed by kinema · · Score: 2, Funny

      I'm betting it was a Lisa.

  7. I must commend Apple by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Even at flopping, they're quite innovative.

    1. Re:I must commend Apple by bonch · · Score: 1

      More on Mac Word 6.0, from the horse's mouth.

  8. that was fast by shadowzero313 · · Score: 0

    anyone have a mirror link?

  9. #11 Flop: Running on postnuke by Ultra+Magnus · · Score: 1

    Seriously, everyone I talk to knows that postnuke (or even phpnuke) can scale easily. And then comes /.

  10. Dead already? by xneubien · · Score: 0

    Wow...no posts and its already gone.

  11. Microsoft Word 6? by eweu · · Score: 5, Interesting

    This is a fairly good list of notable Apple flubs, but why include Microsoft Word 6? It sure was a dog, but that wasn't Apple's fault.

    In it's place, I'd like to nominate the Apple ///. It was such a failure that perhaps the list's originator doesn't even know about it.

    1. Re:Microsoft Word 6? by richcoder · · Score: 1

      Read the post ...top ten list of Apple's (and some of associated partners)...

      He makes it clear that these are not all Apple company flops.

      -rich

    2. Re:Microsoft Word 6? by dissy · · Score: 2, Interesting

      > In it's place, I'd like to nominate the Apple ///. It was such a failure that
      > perhaps the list's originator doesn't even know about it.

      As stated in the ///'s user manual, just pick it up a few inches off your desk and drop it back down... That will stop it from failing! /still amazed at that chip reseating 'fix' ;}

    3. Re:Microsoft Word 6? by sasha328 · · Score: 1

      What about the combined Mac/PC machines like the LC630/Dos or the original Powermacs. They were a good idea, but I wonder how many they sold?

    4. Re:Microsoft Word 6? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't forget that the chip reseating maneuver was obsoleted when Apple replaced all existing Apple/// motherboards with an updated version. For free.

    5. Re:Microsoft Word 6? by dissy · · Score: 1

      > Don't forget that the chip reseating maneuver was obsoleted when Apple replaced
      > all existing Apple/// motherboards with an updated version. For free.

      That is true. I got rid of my /// (unfortunatly) before taking advantage of that offer (That problem was not why I got rid of it), but it does go to show how some companys take care of their customers better than others.

      I bought my /// used, so it's possible it did not come with everything it should have, but did the /// come with circuit schematics as well? I know they were in the apple// technical reference manual and I've read they came with the apple 1.
      Just curious... thats another thing you will never see again from a company these days :{

  12. Speaking for the Apple owners... by isny · · Score: 1

    Blasphemy!!!
    Of course, I own a pc...

    1. Re:Speaking for the Apple owners... by Dorothy+86 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      why has the PC become synonamous with X86? AFAIK PC still stands for Personal Computer... I haven't questioned the trend before, the thought just struck me.

    2. Re:Speaking for the Apple owners... by Dorothy+86 · · Score: 1

      As I said, the thought just struck me. But that makes sense; I didn't really think about it that way.

    3. Re:Speaking for the Apple owners... by Ohreally_factor · · Score: 0

      We appreciate the moral support, infidel dog.

      --
      It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
    4. Re:Speaking for the Apple owners... by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      But why describe the generic thing as a personal computer? AFAIR, before the IBM PC, "Microcomputer" was at least as common a name. And the likes of Amiga and Atari were "Home Computers". When the clones came along, they were called IBM PC compatibles, and then shortened to PCs. It was certainly this X86 branch of the computer world that popularised the PC acronym. Why confuse matters by using PC as a generic name. Use "Desktop computer" (or Laptop) when meaning the generic thing rather than PC to avoid confusion.

    5. Re:Speaking for the Apple owners... by zurtle · · Score: 1
      I call a laptop a PC. That's what it is, ain't it?

      Same goes for a TI-82...!

      --
      Couldn't stand the weather
    6. Re:Speaking for the Apple owners... by Lehk228 · · Score: 1

      unless it's an iBook.

      --
      Snowden and Manning are heroes.
    7. Re:Speaking for the Apple owners... by zurtle · · Score: 1
      I would have thought...

      iBook is a subset of laptop...
      laptop is subset of PC

      Therefore an iBook is a PC!!!

      My logic is flawless. An iBook IS a Personal Computer. Or has the meaning of "personal changed"?????

      --
      Couldn't stand the weather
    8. Re:Speaking for the Apple owners... by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      Why not call it a laptop. That's what it is, ain't it?

    9. Re:Speaking for the Apple owners... by zurtle · · Score: 1

      I call everything a PC, unless it isn't. It's my way of being lazy.

      --
      Couldn't stand the weather
    10. Re:Speaking for the Apple owners... by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      I call everything an aardvark unless it isn't.

  13. First on the list... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    According to the first one in TFA:

    Problem in database connection

    You'd think they'd be a little more specific.

  14. Most recent blunder by amichalo · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I think a recent blunder many remember but will soon be forgotten is the whole iMac G5 blunder.

    Apple misjudged product availability and actually ran out of iMac G4's for two months before they released the iMac G5.

    Yeah, the iMac G5 has relaly been making sales records at Apple, but how much of that is due to there being nothing in the iMac line for people to buy for two months?

    --
    I only came here to do two things; kick some ass, and drink some beer...looks like we're almost out of beer.
    1. Re:Most recent blunder by ozric99 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Apple starve the market of "old tech" just before releasing "new tech", thus creating massive demand and huge sales figures, and you describe this as a blunder? I'll have two of whatever you're having!

    2. Re:Most recent blunder by kannibal_klown · · Score: 1

      Yeh, their supplier really screwed the pooch with the G4's, which is why they've since changed.

      However, the G5 was mega-popular. Everyone I knew wanted one, even MS zealots (that hated anything not MS).

      The speed, the sexiness, and the 64-bit... they road a storm with that one.

      Me, G4 is good enough (for now). My PowerBook runs fine (though not as snappy as my main dev machine). But OS X more than makes up for that.

    3. Re:Most recent blunder by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apple starve the market of "old tech" just before releasing "new tech", thus creating massive demand and huge sales figures, and you describe this as a blunder? I'll have two of whatever you're having!

      He took the red pill. Looks like you took the blue pill.

    4. Re:Most recent blunder by Ken+Erfourth · · Score: 1

      The iMac G5 is so much better than the iMac G4 that I don't think the demand has anything to do with starving the channel.

      --
      Fundamentalism is a crime against humanity
    5. Re:Most recent blunder by MustardMan · · Score: 2, Insightful

      This is the genius of Apple's marketing. Not only do they make their products desired, they make you believe you HAVE to get one right away. Look at what they did with the Mini - denied its existence for months, released it and blew everyone's mind. THEN comes the really smart part, they let all the rabid fans snatch one up for a week, then change their pricing scheme to sweeten the deal a bit for the people who are still on the fence. Some people claim Apple were a bunch of idiots for setting the prices too high to start. I say they are sly as a fox, earning those extra margins for the gotta-have-it-now crowd, THEN bringing even MORE people in with the "oh its such a great deal I definitely gotta get one now!" effect. Blunder my ass, Apple has an ability to manipulate its customers that any marketroid would drool over.

      The scary thing is, I've always been a PC Linux guy, but after my advisor bought us a round of ibooks to do our coding (computational physics) I think I'm on the path to turning into a mac zealot. Chalk up another win for Apple.

    6. Re:Most recent blunder by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      it's a failure.
      a pr win maybe(though, it's just the "you can't buy" kind of a trick), but a financial failure.

      creatign 'demand' like that is just stupid - only benefit of it is that you get a spike in the sales figures.. but go for those months without sales.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    7. Re:Most recent blunder by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apple starve the market of "old tech" just before releasing "new tech", thus creating massive demand and huge sales figures, and you describe this as a blunder?

      Well, it's not a blunder so much as a stupid conscious decision. Because, aside from all the 'punch-me-harder' mac fanatics, most reasonable people are going to say, "I'm tired of this bullshit. It's time to get a PC."

    8. Re:Most recent blunder by deviator · · Score: 1

      Umm- this is a temporary distribution problem (and possibly intentional) - this doesn't compare to the likes of the Lisa, the Cube, Pink/Taligent, Copland, etc. I bet Apple makes mistakes daily, and there have probably been dozens of these such "blunders" in the past. Why is this one special?

      (I am surprised to not see the Cube on the list, by the way; though I think they continue to reap the benefits of the technology they developed for the Cube in the iMac & Mac Mini)

    9. Re:Most recent blunder by amichalo · · Score: 1

      Sorry, you are wrong.

      I say they are sly as a fox, earning those extra margins for the gotta-have-it-now crowd, THEN bringing even MORE people in with the "oh its such a great deal I definitely gotta get one now!" effect.

      Apple's price protection plan is a ten calendar day price matching for anyone buying something up to ten days before the price changes.

      As is widely reported, those who purchased the Mac mini were sent e-mails notifying them of adjustments to the price they paid.

      --
      I only came here to do two things; kick some ass, and drink some beer...looks like we're almost out of beer.
    10. Re:Most recent blunder by MustardMan · · Score: 1

      And what percentage will actually get these adjustments? Much like the concept of the rebate, after-the-fact discounts work so well because not everyone redeems them. If it's automatically credited, which I doubt, that single example of Apple's marketing might not be relevant anymore. This does not by any means prove that my overall statement about Apple's marketing genius is wrong; it simply shows that I might not have given the best example.

    11. Re:Most recent blunder by Leo+McGarry · · Score: 1

      One hundred percent, because no Mac minis were ever actually shipped at the higher price. They were all shipped at the revised price.

  15. I Thought You Were Talking About OS News! by saudadelinux · · Score: 1

    No comments, and the the site seems to've been crushed already! Then I read your post :)

    --
    I didn't think the house band in Hell would play this badly.
    1. Re:I Thought You Were Talking About OS News! by trixy_1086 · · Score: 4, Informative

      I read a link to the story yesterday off of OSNews, and it was damn slow even then. It wasn't so much critical of apple as it was pointing out alot of cool things that never came to fruition, Copland having a huge emphasis. I didn't take it so much as flops as I did "here's a list of cool little known items".

    2. Re:I Thought You Were Talking About OS News! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No shit eh? Perhaps /. is actually now malware.. just get a site /.'ed and there you go.. hacktivism eat your peanuts...

    3. Re:I Thought You Were Talking About OS News! by nottsp1 · · Score: 2, Funny

      is an apple flop some kind of dessert?

  16. At least... by Ikn · · Score: 4, Insightful

    At least one of the flops isn't the OS the entire company is based on. Just sayin'.

    --
    I know nothing
    1. Re:At least... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They'd be making a ton more on their OS if they made an x86 version. But, the Apple zealots will respond to this stating that doing so would cut in to their hardware profits or something. Whatever. :)

    2. Re:At least... by Have+Blue · · Score: 0

      Huh? System/MacOS was a decent platform for 11 years (1984-1995, when Microsoft caught up). And Apple hasn't done anything involving OS 9 other than maintenance on the Classic environment since 2002 at the latest. They don't even sell computers that can run it any more. The company is no more based on classic MacOS than Microsoft is based on DOS (even less so, since there are no harmful side effects to deleting OS 9 entirely on an X machine, unless you count not being able to run legacy programs).

    3. Re:At least... by powerlinekid · · Score: 1

      Read.

      Hes saying at least OSX isn't a flop for apple.

      Hes alluding to the fact that Microsofts most notable product is infact a flop.

      --

      can't sleep slashdot will eat me
    4. Re:At least... by Dhalka226 · · Score: 1

      Hes alluding to the fact that Microsofts most notable product is infact a flop.

      90% market share. If I ever start a company, I'd love to have flops as big as that.

    5. Re:At least... by powerlinekid · · Score: 2, Insightful

      90% market share with 100% of them bitching about it...

      Don't get me wrong, I'd take the money too... but you've got to have some pride in your workmanship.

      --

      can't sleep slashdot will eat me
    6. Re:At least... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't bitch about XP.

      Neither do many people I know.

      100% is pure bullshit.

    7. Re:At least... by BasilBrush · · Score: 1
      If I ever start a company, I'd love to have flops as big as that.

      Trust me, you won't.

    8. Re:At least... by fitten · · Score: 1

      There's a term you might want to become familiar with: "vocal minority"

    9. Re:At least... by powerlinekid · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You don't walk around bitching about it like some of the idiots here.

      I do support, I deal with people who use windows to do their jobs. The fact is its not user friendly and it has a lot of particular quirks that get in the way.

      I'm not saying its any worse than say Linux in that regard, but at least Apple can be proud of OSX. Windows may not be a business flop but it is in terms of quality.

      --

      can't sleep slashdot will eat me
    10. Re:At least... by LookSharp · · Score: 1

      Dude, when you have a userbase that has been using Windows for ten years, you don't hear about Windows "quirks" very much. Especially when you're running a locked-down version of XP with centralized software distribution management.

      I help manage 21,000 desktops for a global financial services company. Our field support handles most basic administration, but we get a few "hardcore Windows quirk" type questions. Maybe... 3-5 a week.

      I have used MacOS X, it's nice. But you were only mentioning Linux against Windows? Oh my God, are you KIDDING? Every 18 months since 1994, I've had the urge to "give Linux another shot" on one of my desktops. I've been through early Slackware to SuSe to Debian to Gentoo, six different revisions of RadHat/Fedora... I can't stand the interface quirks. Unless you make your living, or a serious hobby, out of managing Linux, it's not remotely intuitive to "average desktop users."

      The only things I successfully use linux for are a text-only firewall box (486/33) and the Knoppix boot CD for memory testing. WinPE boot CDs CAN BE nearly as good for managing Windows-OS PCs, though, FYI.

    11. Re:At least... by Leo+McGarry · · Score: 1

      I help manage 21,000 desktops for a global financial services company.

      In case you're wondering, that's exactly why Microsoft has no incentive to make a better Windows: because there are literally millions of people like you out there who are making a comfortable living doing a job that, if you really think about it, nobody should have to do.

      I don't mean to be disrespectful, but economically speaking, you guys are elevator operators. The only reason your jobs exist is because the Otis elevator company (i.e., Microsoft) hasn't yet seen fit to put buttons on the inside of the elevator.

      This status quo is changing, and it's changing rapidly, but even rapid change makes a barely noticeable blip when we're talking about a market this big. There's really only one company out there making computers that work the way they should. Microsoft, as I said, has no incentive to improve their product, and in fact has a disincentive because there are so many elevator operators whose livelihoods are dependent on Microsoft's continuing to build creaky elevators. And of course, as you mentioned, Linux is a disaster.

      So the only vector for change has to be Apple. Nobody else has a financial incentive to do it.

    12. Re:At least... by LookSharp · · Score: 1

      You can be as deprecating as you want. I don't care. I do this job because it's here to be done. I'd like to highlight the point of my post, however. There are 12 of us that do the 2nd-level support for 21,000 machines, and we get 3-5 calls a week about Windows issues. All the rest of our work is centered around evaluation, packaging, staging, and distribution of Win32 software applications. AND PATCHES. We do all the patching.

      My point was that the product is good enough that it practically runs itself. It sounds to me like you're trying to say the product can't run itself, and that's why people like me are hired.

      For reference, we have approximately 280 Unix servers (Solaris, AIX, and RHEL), employ 22 Engineers and Operations staff to support those. Is that because those products suck to? No, it's because there is work to do.

      there are so many elevator operators whose livelihoods are dependent on Microsoft's continuing to build creaky elevators

      You are talking about the thousands of paper MCSEs that showed up 6-8 years ago. Those people are either doing end-user desktop installs, went to more classes and became trainers, or found a different career. I make my living supporting Microsoft's OS and its applications, but only because we have ongoing business needs for new and improved applications, not because Microsoft's product is crap.

    13. Re:At least... by Leo+McGarry · · Score: 1

      You are talking about the thousands of paper MCSEs that showed up 6-8 years ago.

      No, friend. I'm talking about you.

      Last night the President announced an initiative to increase federal funding to our country's community and junior colleges. If I were you, I'd find one fast and start taking night classes. In a matter of just a few years, your job is going to vanish forever.

    14. Re:At least... by LookSharp · · Score: 1

      Dear Leo McGarry,

      I'm not sure who you think I am, but *I* have a skillset well outside Windows desktop administration, including SunOne Web Server, IBM WebSphere and IBM/Tivoli Access Manager, LDAP administration, PERL scripting, REXX scripting, and software distribution. I make good salary, and have had a solid employment history at my present job for seven years. If Windows suddenly goes away, I have a half-dozen other options.

      My point was that I make my living doing this because it is here to do. Go back and read again. I know that your big Unix beard is getting in the way, but pull down those giant bi-focals and look closely at the text in the browser window that's obscuring your bash shell.

      Thanks.

    15. Re:At least... by Leo+McGarry · · Score: 1

      SunOne Web Server, IBM WebSphere and IBM/Tivoli Access Manager, LDAP administration, PERL scripting, REXX scripting, and software distribution

      That's good. Seriously, that's just fantastic. It's kind of a shame, though, that that's all 20th-century stuff, WAY behind the technology curve.

      Seriously: Start taking night classes. You don't want to be the last buggy-whip manufacturer in town, do you?

    16. Re:At least... by LookSharp · · Score: 1

      That's OK, sir, I am playing with one-eight-millionth-scale nanotube space elevators in my basement.

      You're named after a character on The West Wing and have a user number 840,000 above mine. Yeah, seems like you've been real hot on this here technology bandwagon to have discovered Slashdot in the waning minutes of 2004...

      I can't tell if you're really an arrogant, judgemental jerk, or just a troll. Why am I feeding you?

    17. Re:At least... by Leo+McGarry · · Score: 1

      a user number 840,000 above mine

      Let us be men. I'll drop my pants, you can hold the ruler.

  17. Mirrordot by mt+v2.7 · · Score: 1

    0 comments and it's down already?

    http://mirrordot.org/stories/8739fc09d2972ac5841 0a 3f342a33f43/index.html

    MIrrordot to the rescue ^_^

    1. Re:Mirrordot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      hehe for sure. interesting though given today's discussion about Apple's global impact

    2. Re:Mirrordot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Link /.'d

    3. Re:Mirrordot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Great -- now we have the "Problem in Database Connection" mirrored... I guess the MirrorDot's automagic story parser was too slow.

    4. Re:Mirrordot by Piquan · · Score: 1

      Mirrordot shows me the same "Problem in Database Connection" page.

    5. Re:Mirrordot by gremlins · · Score: 1

      You would think mirrordot would spring for the extra cash to to get a subscription so they can see the story early and mirror links

      --
      just because your a schizophrenic doesn't mean people arn't really out to get you
    6. Re:Mirrordot by snookerdoodle · · Score: 1

      "Hey man! The MirrorDot page you are looking for is not here."

      Who's gonna rescue MirrorDot?

    7. Re:Mirrordot by v1 · · Score: 1

      I've gotten that msg every time I've tried to follow a MirrorDot link here on slashdot. Worthless.

      --
      I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
    8. Re:Mirrordot by Breakfast+Pants · · Score: 1

      The folks at mirror dot apparently can afford a monster server, but somehow can't afford a slashdot subscription.

      --

      --

      WHO ATE MY BREAKFAST PANTS?
    9. Re:Mirrordot by HAKdragon · · Score: 1

      It's because of the way Slashdot handels long strings of text, if you notice, there's a space in the grandparents url. If you take the space out everything works fine.

      --
      "Our opponent is an alien starship packed with atomic bombs. We have a protractor."
    10. Re:Mirrordot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and by fine you mean...

      Problem in Database Connection

      This Website is powered by PostNuke

  18. 3 words: HOCKEY PUCK MOUSE by SamSeaborn · · Score: 1, Insightful

    3 words: HOCKEY PUCK MOUSE

    1. Re:3 words: HOCKEY PUCK MOUSE by michaeldot · · Score: 1

      I love the hockey puck mouse!

      It was a very precise little pointing instrument, and I used to specifically plug one in when I had pixel accurate point selection to do.

      Admittedly, I may have smaller hands than most.

      I much preferred it to the current BAR OF SOAP, which I've given away to relative / friends, but I've kept the hockey puck.

    2. Re:3 words: HOCKEY PUCK MOUSE by theparanoidcynic · · Score: 1

      Sure, sure. Very accurate so long as you're not holding it a few degrees off . . . . . .

      Still, Apple mice do have a feature that I rather like: symmetry and a single button. I'm ambidextrous and it makes it so I can use the thing with either hand without any weird curvature or need to invert the buttons, either in the box or in my brain. (Admittedly we mutants are a rather small market, though I'll bet the lefties like the mice too for a similar reason.)

      --
      Only in a Slashdot fantasy can a Slackware install turn into several hours of sex . . . . .
    3. Re:3 words: HOCKEY PUCK MOUSE by v1 · · Score: 1

      Mice need to have some degree of asymetry to them so you can "home" your grip on the bugger to a fixed orientation without having to take your eyes off what you're working on. Heck, even word-processing, if you're typing (both hands on keyboard) and see a word earlier in the paragraph you need to change, you have to reach for the mouse. Taking your eyes off the text you're working on interrupts your workflow, so most people will just glance at the mouse using their peripheral vision and grab it. If you grab a puckmouse, it's anybody's guess what direction the pointer is going to fly off in when you try to move it to the word to change.

      --
      I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
    4. Re:3 words: HOCKEY PUCK MOUSE by Ohreally_factor · · Score: 1

      Hey, you're a slashdotter. It's completely understandable that you'd be confused/put-off/fearful of anything resembling a bar of soap. =)

      --
      It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
    5. Re:3 words: HOCKEY PUCK MOUSE by dmaxwell · · Score: 1

      Grab the SOB without looking at it and the upward movement you wanted to make turns into a diagonal slew. --grumble!..twist grip slightly..grumble...f'n hockey puck! Seriously, it is difficult to quickly tell by touch alone which way the pointing device is oriented. That is a rather serious deficiency in a pointing device, especially from the user friendly company. The pro mice are a button and a scroll wheel short but I'll allow they feel good enough that I'll forgive them for the stinking hockey pucks.

    6. Re:3 words: HOCKEY PUCK MOUSE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Um... Hockeypuck is one word, dope.

    7. Re:3 words: HOCKEY PUCK MOUSE by Maserati · · Score: 1

      Ahh, someone's missed the keyboard editing commands. On a Mac, hold down Option and use the arrow keys - you move the cursor a whole word at a time, and the Command key moves a whole line. On Windows substitute Control for Option. On both platforms adding the shift key to ctr/opt selects a word at a time. Don't forget to use up/down arrow to change lines. This all allows for very rapid, entirely keyboard-based editing. Of course, the Emacs and vi users are finally unified in their disdain for what I've just said :-)

      The hockey-puck mouse had it's flaws of course. Mind, I rapidly started using the cable to orient myself to the mouse when I first grasped it - just brushing the cable with my fingers would let me know exactly how the mouse was oriented. Importantly, later models of the puck had a depression on the button so your fingers could find it even easier than by checking the cable. It sounds like the designers went for theory over extensive user testing.

      --
      Veteran, Bermuda Triangle Expeditionary Force, 1992-1951
    8. Re:3 words: HOCKEY PUCK MOUSE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Page is slashdotted, but I should hope EVERY mouse Apple have made is on there.
      Be it bar of soap or hockey puck. I hate them.
      Bar of soap has terrible tracking for an optical, seems like its first gen optical technology in them.

      First Thing I do when I get onto a mac is plug in a good logitech optical mouse. And wow, right click even does something!

    9. Re:3 words: HOCKEY PUCK MOUSE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, no, it isn't.
      Check your dictionary.
      Hockey puck or hockey-puck.

    10. Re:3 words: HOCKEY PUCK MOUSE by MoneyT · · Score: 1

      Actualy it was fairly easy with most of them as they had a little groove on the button to idicate that it was the button and hence up. In fact, just today I came across one that didn't have the grove and I had to double to check because I was used to the grove being there. That said, the mice weren't as bad as people made them out to be, but they did require a different grip. They had to be palmed rather than grabbed.

      --
      T Money
      World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
    11. Re:3 words: HOCKEY PUCK MOUSE by MoneyT · · Score: 1

      THANKYOU!. I'm glad I'm not the only one that wishes mice were more symetrical. I would love to buy a wireless mouse for my computer to replace my old one, but I can't find a decent wireless mouse that's symetrical.

      --
      T Money
      World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
    12. Re:3 words: HOCKEY PUCK MOUSE by SteeldrivingJon · · Score: 1

      Late in their hardware-producing era, NeXT had a mouse which was like the hockey puck, except it had two buttons on sort of a wedge shape extending from the front of the mouse.

      There's a picture at the bottom of this page.

      I rather liked that mouse. The puck, though, I did not like.

      Nor do I like the current Apple mouse. I use a Microsoft trackball with my Mac and my PC.

      --
      September 2011: Looking for Cocoa/iOS work in Boston area Cocoa Programmer Quincy, MA
    13. Re:3 words: HOCKEY PUCK MOUSE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But elongated mice are self-orienting in the hand--you grasp them the same time every time without having to feel or do anything.

      A round mouse is like a square wheel: it makes no sense and doesn't serve its most basic purpose.

  19. This site flopped by Ostie · · Score: 1

    "Problem in Database Connection" I think this site just flopped.

  20. Apple ///, anyone? by Faust7 · · Score: 5, Informative

    Why the heck isn't the Apple /// in there? They made it for three whole years, less than 100,000 units (something around 75,000 I believe?).

    The first models were plagued by quality control problems - a clock chip from National Semiconductor that wouldn't work, inadequate ventilation resulting in the unseating of chips (which was rectified by lifting the computer a few inches and dropping it), too-short keyboard cables, and very little software.

    The Apple ///'s reputation was ruined almost right after it was out of the gate, despite the advanced SOS. Production stopped in '83 I believe, and it's a damn good thing Apple had the Mac coming out right afterwards.

    1. Re:Apple ///, anyone? by mveloso · · Score: 5, Interesting

      What's amazing to me is the Apple ][ series lifespan was from 1977 to 1993. Unbelievable! That's 16 years from the original Apple ][ to the last gs EOL.

    2. Re:Apple ///, anyone? by TastelessGarbage · · Score: 1

      Other than /// Easy Pieces, was there any software done for it? I had bought one in early '83 on the recommendation of my sister (worked for Apple) and was unpleasantly surprised that there was basically nothing out there, unless you ran in ][ emulation.

      --
      That ain't liver; that's beef kidney!
    3. Re:Apple ///, anyone? by artemis67 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Chalk that one up to the educational market, and the huge investment they had in Apple ][ hardware and software. There was too much money at stake for Apple to just walk away from it.

      Apple's final solution was to sell the Mac LC with the entire Apple ][ chipset on a daughtercard. IIRC, that didn't sell too well and most schools just bought Macs or PC's.

    4. Re:Apple ///, anyone? by Anonymous+Writer · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Why the heck isn't the Apple /// in there?

      I heard it was such a flop that Apple became kind of superstitious about their naming conventions and refused to name any subsequent products beyond "][". They had the Apple I, Apple ][, and Apple ][+ before the Apple ///. After the Apple /// flopped, they went back to "][" and had the Apple //e, Apple //c, and Apple //gs. For the Macintosh line, they had the Mac //, Mac //x, Mac //cx, Mac //ci, Mac //si, Mac //fx, Mac //vi, and Mac //vx. They never used "///" again, or any roman numeral above it.

      Even now, they have dumped numbering their product lines altogether, despite the constant upgrades in hardware configurations. The only exception is the processor suffix (G4 or G5), which doesn't really indicate the product generation anyway. This applies to iPods as well.

    5. Re:Apple ///, anyone? by sessamoid · · Score: 1
      They never used "///" again, or any roman numeral above it.

      Umm.... ever heard of Mac OS X? :)

      --
      "No, no, no. Don't tug on that. You never know what it might be attached to."
    6. Re:Apple ///, anyone? by NutscrapeSucks · · Score: 2, Informative

      1993 was only the official date when the //e was finally dropped from the back of the catalog. Apple hadn't done anything to support the platform for years prior.

      (And the long lifespan wasn't that strange. www.ibm.com had PCjr parts listed well into the late 90s.)

      --
      Whenever I hear the word 'Innovation', I reach for my pistol.
    7. Re:Apple ///, anyone? by Michael+Woodhams · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Actually, I'm thankful for the Apple ///'s chip-unseating problem. I never had an Apple ///, but I heard about the problem, and its solution, at the time. Years later when my '486 Packard Bell stopped working, I tried the 'drop' method, and it worked. It had to be reapplied every few months, however.

      Finally, about 2 weeks before my PhD thesis was due, the 'drop' method didn't resurrect my computer. After about half an hour of poking at chips, attempting restarts etc, it eventually came back, but although Linux reported the same BogoMIPs, it was noticably about 1/4 the speed it had been. My theory is somehow it came back with cache disabled. (Cache was on separate chips in those days.)

      --
      Quattuor res in hoc mundo sanctae sunt: libri, liberi, libertas et liberalitas.
    8. Re:Apple ///, anyone? by linguae · · Score: 1

      Err, what about the Mac LC III? And considered a pretty good machine, too.

    9. Re:Apple ///, anyone? by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      Yeah ... just selling spare parts, and actively marketing a system are two entirely different things. The Apple //e died years before.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    10. Re:Apple ///, anyone? by Yakko · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I'm sure you also were rudely surprised when the "II emulation" got you a 48k Apple II+ unless you added hardware like the III+IIe...

      Word on the street is the III's engineers had to add circuitry to keep the advanced capabilities from being used from emulation mode. It's also said that if the power lamp was burnt out, the computer wouldn't boot up!

      Perhaps the best two things to come out of the Apple III were Appleworks (an Apple II port of /// easy pieces; the files are the same between the two down to the filetypes) and ProDOS (basically a subset of SOS for the II series). There were other nice things, like the Apple keys and 80 column cards for the II series...

      --

      --
      Me spell chucker work grate. Need grandma chicken.
    11. Re:Apple ///, anyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Macintosh lifespan was from January 1984 to present, so that's already 21 years. Give it a few more years and it will have lasted longer than the IBM PC (1981-2004).

    12. Re:Apple ///, anyone? by John+Harrison · · Score: 1

      You are forgetting the IIgs.

    13. Re:Apple ///, anyone? by threephaseboy · · Score: 1

      Just nit-picking here, the Mac II line was identified by "II" (two upper-case i's), not by "//".
      For reference: Macintosh IIci
      Macintosh II
      Macintosh IIvx (same case as Perfoma 600)

      --
      .
    14. Re:Apple ///, anyone? by Anonymous+Writer · · Score: 1

      I didn't realise they had those. There goes that theory.

    15. Re:Apple ///, anyone? by Mercano · · Score: 1

      The only exception is the processor suffix (G4 or G5), which doesn't really indicate the product generation anyway. This applies to iPods as well.

      Execept thst the G stands for generation, though of the CPU rather then the machine. G3 (which had a three in the name) was the third major generation of PPC chips that Apple used. At this point, I wish Apple would number things more. Though for a while they played arround with "DV" and "SE," there have been various machines in three different form factors all basically going by the name iMac for almost six years now. There have been PowerBook G4's on the market since January 2001, and I doubt that Apple's latest refresh have much in common with the 400 MHz model of yore. Same thing with the iBooks and iPods. Really, all I am asking is for some simple way to figure out what hardware revision someone is talking about without haveing to go look up processor speeds, drive capacities, and development code names.
      --
      #include <signature.h>
    16. Re:Apple ///, anyone? by Anonymous+Writer · · Score: 1

      I meant for hardware. But as someone already pointed out, that isn't the case either.

    17. Re:Apple ///, anyone? by Shannon+Love · · Score: 2, Informative

      No, Apple was still manufacturing them in 1992 when I joined the company. I remember we had a little party when they stopped.

    18. Re:Apple ///, anyone? by paulschreiber · · Score: 1

      Not true -- there was the LC III. And stop writing // -- that only applied to the Apple // line. The Mac line used regular "I"s.

    19. Re:Apple ///, anyone? by NutscrapeSucks · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure the IIgs was dropped from the catalog a couple years before the //e was.

      --
      Whenever I hear the word 'Innovation', I reach for my pistol.
    20. Re:Apple ///, anyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      iPod's are referred to as gen-3, too. But it's a pretty good theory anyhow. Mostly stands up. The LC III was fairly forgettable, so it was wise they've kept from having 3 as a post-fix in the official product name for the most part.

    21. Re:Apple ///, anyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Does that mean we'll never see an iiiMac or an iiiPod.

    22. Re:Apple ///, anyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They never used "///" again, or any roman numeral above it.

      What about OS X? Isn't that Operating System 10?
      That isn't hardware though :)

    23. Re:Apple ///, anyone? by NutscrapeSucks · · Score: 1

      I don't doubt it, but they were only selling them as replacement parts to the legacy installed base. There was no first party or third party software coming out for the things.

      --
      Whenever I hear the word 'Innovation', I reach for my pistol.
    24. Re:Apple ///, anyone? by lsmeg · · Score: 1

      ] think /'m confused about the letter I now...

      --
      It's OK! I'm a limo driver!
    25. Re:Apple ///, anyone? by myov · · Score: 1

      They never used "///" again, or any roman numeral above it.

      The first Mac I used was an LC3.

      --
      I use Macs to up my productivity, so up yours Microsoft!
    26. Re:Apple ///, anyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only if we disregard the fact that the 1984 Macintosh has nothing, apart from the name, to do with the current models.

    27. Re:Apple ///, anyone? by tgibbs · · Score: 1

      Yes, this was a serious failure. When Apple badly needed to transition from home/hobby to a serious business computer, the unreliability of the Apple /// was a major blow. The problem was the use of socketed chips. The socketed chips were one thing that made the Apple II such a great hobbyist machine--you could fix most motherboard problems by swapping off-the-shelf chips. But thermal cycling caused the chips to gradually work their way out of the sockets, and the pins tended to build up corrosion. To keep our Apple II's running reliably, I used to pop all the chips halfway out of their sockets and plug them back in once a year. That's OK for a hobbyist machine, but a business system like the Apple /// was expected to just run without that sort of hands-on routine maintenance.

    28. Re:Apple ///, anyone? by toddestan · · Score: 4, Funny

      Only if we disregard the fact that the 1984 Macintosh has nothing, apart from the name, to do with the current models.

      That's not true! They both have a one button mouse! *ducks*

    29. Re:Apple ///, anyone? by snuf23 · · Score: 1

      That's nothing! The Commodore 64 is STILL being made!

      hehe

      --
      Sometimes my arms bend back.
    30. Re:Apple ///, anyone? by Dun+Malg · · Score: 1
      And stop writing // -- that only applied to the Apple // line

      Wasn't that specifically the "//c"? I seem to recall the previous ones using square brackets, i.e. "][e".

      --
      If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
    31. Re:Apple ///, anyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'll take the Lionel Ritchie CD before the commodore 64 joysticks. ;)

    32. Re:Apple ///, anyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...and Mac //vx. They never used "///" again, or any roman numeral above it.

      Macintosh LC III comes to mind...

    33. Re:Apple ///, anyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I have a /// (and a ///+). I have a copy paper box 'full' of software for these machines. Maybe a dozen titles, because they are in the original boxes. Most of the titles are apple-branded, and they are all business related. But, the software covers the whole spectrum: mail list managers, word processors, business basic, spreadsheet, etc.

      I also have a parallel port card for it, sans cable, so if anyone has a pinout diagram and can post a link, that'd be nifty :)

    34. Re:Apple ///, anyone? by rograndom · · Score: 1

      They never used "///" again, or any roman numeral above it.

      I don't know about that. My LC III at home begs to differ.

    35. Re: Apple ///, anyone? by gidds · · Score: 1

      Yeah, the two-inch drop was a standard technique. I remember it being standard advice for certain problems with the Atari ST range.

      --

      Ceterum censeo subscriptionem esse delendam.

    36. Re:Apple ///, anyone? by ek_adam · · Score: 1

      There was one exception. They had the Mac LC III, a fairly good low cost Mac for its time.

    37. Re:Apple ///, anyone? by titten · · Score: 1

      Just wanted to point out the most obvious roman numeral above ///:
      MacOS X...

    38. Re:Apple ///, anyone? by hackstraw · · Score: 1

      What's amazing to me is the Apple ][ series lifespan was from 1977 to 1993. Unbelievable!

      Another crazy thing is my 1st computer was an Apple ][c. I got it in 1984 and used it until 1994 when I got my 486 and started using Linux. Apple hardware in general has a longer lifespan than other similar products.

    39. Re:Apple ///, anyone? by Anonymous+Writer · · Score: 1

      ADDENDUM to my earlier post...

      1. I was referring to hardware only, and I obviously know about OS X.
      2. I wasn't aware there was an LC III and now I am. But they still stuck with "II"s quite a bit for the Macintosh line.
      3. I was referring to the specific model when I said "product generation". For example the PowerBook G4 can refer to a number of different releases of different configurations under the same name.
      4. I could swear I read or heard somewhere ages ago that Apple chose to stick with the "II" suffix, at least for the Apple II line, because the Apple /// wasn't successful. They go on to create an Apple IV, V, and VI. Instead, they had the Apple //e, //c, and //gs. Can anyone else verify this?
    40. Re:Apple ///, anyone? by bjohnson · · Score: 1

      Only the original Apple ][ and ][+ used the brackets.

      All the rest of the Apple 2 line used the two slashes: //e, //c and //gs.

    41. Re:Apple ///, anyone? by Anonymous+Writer · · Score: 1
      ADDENDUM to ADDENDUM...

      I meant they didn't go on to create an Apple IV... blah blah blah... I'm falling asleep and accidentally pressed "submit" instead of "preview".

    42. Re:Apple ///, anyone? by Dun+Malg · · Score: 1
      Only the original Apple ][ and ][+ used the brackets. All the rest of the Apple 2 line used the two slashes: //e, //c and //gs.

      Ah, that's right. I had a ][+ and later a //e. I must've been remembering the ][+.

      --
      If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
    43. Re:Apple ///, anyone? by slapout · · Score: 1

      Look up sometime how long the Atari 2600 was in production.

      --
      Coder's Stone: The programming language quick ref for iPad
    44. Re:Apple ///, anyone? by jamesbrown1000 · · Score: 1

      this is not accurate ...

      the LC III -- i owned one. it was a great little box.

      --
      Mindy: "Well...desserts aren't always right." Homer: "But they're so sweet!"
    45. Re:Apple ///, anyone? by WhiteChocolate42 · · Score: 1

      not true. The Macintosh LC3 sold quite well.

    46. Re:Apple ///, anyone? by WhiteChocolate42 · · Score: 1

      ah crap, I just posted the same thing that a dozen other people have already said. Time to quit browsing with a threshold of 5.

    47. Re:Apple ///, anyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "The first models were plagued by quality control problems - a clock chip from National Semiconductor that wouldn't work,"

      Thanks, National Semi...

      "inadequate ventilation resulting in the unseating of chips (which was rectified by lifting the computer a few inches and dropping it),"

      It had nothing to do with "inadequate ventilation"; there was no fan, most of the weight of the case was a massive heatsink in the back.

      The problem was mainly a combination of two interacting factors:

      1) The motherboard was mounted on a heavy sheet steel pan. As the system heated and cooled, the pan would flex, flexing the motherboard.

      3) Chips on the motherboard were socketed, the sockets were tight, and as the motherboard flexed, the chips would walk up out of the sockets, but they were tight enough that motion was one-way. Eventually, they walked far enough that signal connections were broken. (Lift the keyboard up an inch, let go, and the chips dropped back into the socket again.

      The fix was a combination of relaying the motherboard ("coarse-line" board replacing older "fine-line" board). And Apple replaced all customers older motherboards, no charge. Which became known as the "six-million-dollar fix". It seemed, for a while, as if every succeeding proposal to fix an existing problem with customers' systems would be $6 million. Some joked that it was a fixed function in VisiCalc.

      "too-short keyboard cables,"

      Given that the keyboard was welded to the CPU case...

      "and very little software"

      Other than essentially everything written to run on the Apple][ family.

      Probably the biggest problem was demands from marketing that the Apple/// must *not* cannibalize Apple// sales. (Neat trick, since the Apple/// was more than twice the price.)

      So, the Apple// mode built in to the Apple/// could not address more than 48K of memory, and the internal architecture of the system was so convoluted that programming system-level applications were far more complicated than they should have been.

    48. Re:Apple ///, anyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "After the Apple /// flopped, they went back to "][""...

      They didn't go back, the Apple// line was parallel to the ///. Engineering and sales never stopped during the entire period.

  21. Flops at Apple are predictable by Dancin_Santa · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Apple has always had significant trouble when Steve Jobs is not at the helm. Gil Amelio and his drive to gain business credibility really put a huge pain on the company.

    It has always been about Steve Jobs. The man has insight and what could almost be considered clairvoyance when it comes to building things that people crave. God knows that I'm one of those at his feet, weeping and bathing him in frankincense.

    1. Re:Flops at Apple are predictable by tdhillman · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "It has always been about Steve Jobs. The man has insight and what could almost be considered clairvoyance when it comes to building things that people crave. God knows that I'm one of those at his feet, weeping and bathing him in frankincense."

      Unfortunately, this also represents a huge problem for Apple down the road. As much as Jobs has dictated that which is desirable, genius tends to have a shelf life. A time will come when he just can't produce the same way- I hope to hell that he is grooming some manner of successor.

      --
      befuddled (noun) 1. Unable to create a pithy sig
    2. Re:Flops at Apple are predictable by ScrewMaster · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Apple has also had significant trouble with Jobs at the helm. It's hard to say whether they've been better off with, or without the man. Let's not forget that he was responsible for bringing Markkula and Sculley on board. That worked out real well, didn't it (rhetorical question.)

      I started out in 1977 on a first-run Apple ][ Standard (Integer ROMs and casette tape.) I eventually upgraded to an Applesoft BASIC card, 4 Mhz. turbo card, Corvus hard drive, the works. I still have all that stuff, actually, except the Corvus which died long ago. I was one of the early crowd of Apple hackers: in 1978 I was selling a simple speech synthesizer that plugged into the game paddle port ... those were great times. It'll never be like that again, that's for sure.

      Now, his decision to unceremoniously drop the Apple // series and the millions of loyal Apple // users may be be an example of Jobs' insight. But from my perspective, as a member of that once-loyal class, I will never trust that company ever again. I invested several years of my career developing software for those machines, only to be told, in the end, "We recommend you buy a MacIntosh." Screw you, Jobs, and the horse you rode in on.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    3. Re:Flops at Apple are predictable by Queer+Boy · · Score: 1
      I hope to hell that he is grooming some manner of successor.

      Their names are Avie Tevanian and Jonathan Ive.

      --
      Not since Marie-Antoinette played milkmaid has looking simple and honest been so fake and complicated.
    4. Re:Flops at Apple are predictable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      weeping and bathing him

      I know I'd be a wee bit upset if I had to see Steve Jobs naked.

    5. Re:Flops at Apple are predictable by NutscrapeSucks · · Score: 2, Interesting

      John Scully gets very little respect from Mac fans (becuase he fired Jobs). He might have lost the marketshare war, but he put the Mac on a sound technical foundation and turned Apple into the strong mid-sized company it is today.

      Furthermore it was Scully who turned Apple into something more than just a computer company, the whole "brand icon" thing was his idea. In that sense, the Jobs II era is really just walking in Scully's footsteps.

      --
      Whenever I hear the word 'Innovation', I reach for my pistol.
    6. Re:Flops at Apple are predictable by Shannon+Love · · Score: 1

      Under Scully, Apple fragmented in dozens of little fiefdoms, none of whom really cooperated with each other. He really wasn't at the helm of the company. The company really just costed under his tenure. When the rough times hit, the company lacked the cohesion and discipline to really respond.

      Of course, Sully was a GOD compared to Spindler (*Spit*).

    7. Re:Flops at Apple are predictable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      Now, his decision to unceremoniously drop the Apple // series and the millions of loyal Apple // users may be be an example of Jobs' insight.

      Wow, you need help with reality.

      The Apple II had an incredible run ... from 1977 until 1993... almost 9 years after the Mac's release! And well after Jobs was out of Apple.

      Now I'm a pretty huge Apple II fan ("call -151" and "PR#6" always come to mind...) but I completely understand why Apple gave up the Apple II after so many years.

      It was a great machine. But it was an evaporating market after 1985, and the fact that Apple kept it up until 1993 is nothing short of incredible.

      And remember: By 1990 all of the other non-Intel PC architectures had failed. C64, Amiga, TRS-80, Rainbow, anything CP/M, AT&T, Atari, and all the others were dead. The fact that Apple kept it going until '93 is nothing short of amazing.

      Hell, even the old Mac LC came with an Apple II compatability card.

    8. Re:Flops at Apple are predictable by SteeldrivingJon · · Score: 2, Informative

      Apple has also had significant trouble with Jobs at the helm. It's hard to say whether they've been better off with, or without the man. Let's not forget that he was responsible for bringing Markkula and Sculley on board. That worked out real well, didn't it (rhetorical question.)

      Well, he was young. Whaddya want?

      He went on to run both NeXT and Pixar. Pixar's doing fantastic, and he kept NeXT going long enough that it outlived Apple's own OS development projects and was acquired.

      Now, he's got BOTH Apple and Pixar going like gangbusters.

      Most companies would be lucky to be afflicted with such management.

      --
      September 2011: Looking for Cocoa/iOS work in Boston area Cocoa Programmer Quincy, MA
    9. Re:Flops at Apple are predictable by cosmic_0x526179 · · Score: 1
      Things which Steve did that still infuriate me...

      o Serial HD-20 (that was Steve's last project before his banishment to the pointless-forest)

      o closed architecture on the original Mac's (the Cuisinart Mac concept)

      o killing the Newton

      Things which Steve got right...

      o the iMac

      o OS-X

      o the iPod

      o iTMS

      nuff said

      --
      This msg is brought to you by the letter 'W'.. for Worthless Wuss
    10. Re:Flops at Apple are predictable by SteeldrivingJon · · Score: 1

      Of course, Sully was a GOD compared to Spindler (*Spit*).

      Spindler must have been some board member's lackluster nephew who needed a job. Even if it was in some other parallel dimension, and that reality leaked through into ours and he still wound up CEO of Apple despite not being anyone's nephew here.

      I dunno.

      Was it true about him hiding under his desk?

      --
      September 2011: Looking for Cocoa/iOS work in Boston area Cocoa Programmer Quincy, MA
    11. Re:Flops at Apple are predictable by MicroBerto · · Score: 1

      Hopefully he's read the book Built To Last: Successful Habits of Visionary Companies... read the chapters on Promote From Within and Homegrown Management. If they don't have his successor chosen out and a solid management training program that recruits directly out of college, it's their own damned fault. The research is all there, suggesting what works best.

      --
      Berto
    12. Re:Flops at Apple are predictable by Shannon+Love · · Score: 1

      Spindler (*spit*) was a German and a German trained engineer. I couldn't believe someone of that background could so destroy a company's quality control.

      I can't confirm if he ever hid under his desk but I do know that many people believe he actively avoided them so they could not give him bad news. (He also had a reputation for shooting the messenger.)

    13. Re:Flops at Apple are predictable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I will never trust that company ever again. I invested several years of my career developing software for those machines

      Probably about time to let go, methinks. Jobs didn't kill the Apple ][ -- the IBM PC killed the Apple ][.

    14. Re:Flops at Apple are predictable by NutscrapeSucks · · Score: 1

      I think Scully saw his job as Chief Marketeer, and he let just let the producution side run amok. However, he did spend massive amounts on very speculative R&D, and at the very least had a few cool ideas to show for it (Newton for example), if not actual products (like a nextgen OS).

      However, without Scully and his Apple-Brand-Icon marketing, Apple wouldn't have had the loyal customer base that allowed it to get through the rough times, and you probably wouldn't have hundreds of people descending on every /. Mac story pimping Apple's stuff.

      Finally, Scully's strategy of huge margins built up billions of dollars in the bank. So even if Apple lacked the "discipline", at least they had the $$$$ to survive.

      --
      Whenever I hear the word 'Innovation', I reach for my pistol.
    15. Re:Flops at Apple are predictable by Shannon+Love · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure how much of Scully's brand building was really responsible for Apple's loyal following. The major driver of customer loyalty was the technology itself. Scully let the entire company run wild. The financial operations within the company were ludicrous. For example, customer service got bank all extended warranties against its profitability but manufacturing had to pay the warranty cost. As a result customer service division sold extended warranties for every possible unit no matter how old or in what condition. Apple did grow fat under Scully but frankly I think that was inertia. He never had a real feel or passion for the technology in my opinion. Under Scully, Apple stopped being a central player in the computer industry and evolved towards its current niche (but highly visible and innovative) player it is today.

    16. Re:Flops at Apple are predictable by autopr0n · · Score: 1

      Apple was loosing, like, 700 million dollars a quarter before jobs retook the helm.

      --
      autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
    17. Re:Flops at Apple are predictable by digitalcowboy · · Score: 1

      Apple has also had significant trouble with Jobs at the helm. It's hard to say whether they've been better off with, or without the man. Let's not forget that he was responsible for bringing Markkula and Sculley on board. That worked out real well, didn't it (rhetorical question.)

      Not this time around. They just posted their most successful quarterly numbers in history and have around $6 billion in cash reserves. They were on the verge of bankruptcy when he came back less than 7 years ago.

      Perhaps he was a naive kid, from a business perspective, back in the old days. He made a whole lot of business mistakes at NeXT, too.

      Looks to me like he's learned from his mistakes and now his unique genius is paired with business acumen and perhaps a better understanding of his own strengths and weaknesses.

      The only major mistake he's made, that I can think of, as CEO v2.0 is the Cube.

    18. Re:Flops at Apple are predictable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      I will never trust that company ever again. I invested several years of my career developing software for those machines

      How's it feel to carry around that baggage for 25 years?

    19. Re:Flops at Apple are predictable by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      well.. jobs used apple to bail next technology.

      lucky for 'em it worked out, sort of.

      anyhow.. can't get to read the darn article even.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    20. Re:Flops at Apple are predictable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      So, at this point, your beard is what, three-three and-a-half feet long now?

    21. Re:Flops at Apple are predictable by parkrrrr · · Score: 1
      I bought an Amiga 500 in 1989. I distinctly remember that the 600, the 2500, the 3000, and the 4000 all came out well after 1990. I'm pretty sure the 4000 was still new in 1993. Commodore was busy driving the Amiga into the ground even then, but they hadn't quite succeeded in killing it yet.

      I wasn't an Atari type at the time, so my memories of that line are less clear, but I'm pretty sure there were one or two STs that weren't too shabby when I was shopping for my Amiga. At the time, the IBM PC and compatibles were still "business" computers and VGA was this new thing that'd just come out. Nobody I knew could afford it, though I do remember I had a rich friend with an EGA card. Those of us with 12-bit 320x400 graphics laughed at him behind his back.

    22. Re:Flops at Apple are predictable by JavaLord · · Score: 1

      It has always been about Steve Jobs. The man has insight and what could almost be considered clairvoyance when it comes to building things that people crave.

      Yes, because it takes insight and clairvoyance to have less desktop marketshare than linux which is free. It takes a special kind of leader to acoomplish that!

    23. Re:Flops at Apple are predictable by tbone1 · · Score: 1
      The only major mistake he's made, that I can think of, as CEO v2.0 is the Cube.

      Well, amongst things he did. However, the things you don't do are just as important. For example, Jobs did admit that Apple, and a lot of other companies, missed the boat on the new music/mp3 market in the late 90s/ early 00s (or is that "early aughts"?). Hence they purchased SoundJam, rebranded and reworked as iTunes, and set to work moving into the market ASAP with the iPod, the music store, shipping computers with built-in CD burners as a standard, and so on. That was an initial failure from which they seem to have recovered ...

      --

      The Independent: Reverend Spooner Arrested in Friar Tuck Incident - ISIHAC, Historical Headlines
    24. Re:Flops at Apple are predictable by (H)olyGeekboy · · Score: 1


      I invested several years of my career developing software for those machines, only to be told, in the end, "We recommend you buy a MacIntosh." Screw you, Jobs, and the horse you rode in on.

      And this, ladies and gentlemen, is the famed "Elder Apple Curmudgeon." Although he is 50 years old, he is bent on sharing his displeasures with the IT industry in a webforum whose average age is 19.

      Hey buddy, here's a reality check. I invested a lot of time on (in order:) AppleSoft BASIC, Macintosh System 6, MS-DOS 6.22 and Windows 3.11, Mac OS 8, Windows 95, Windows NT 3.5, Windows NT 4.0, Windows 2000, Windows XP on machines from the Apple IIe, Mac SE, Mac LC, ZeOs 386, Mac Quadra 840av, and a dozen or so generic PCs. I have learned to build PCs starting at Pentiums on Baby AT motherboard, through Slot 1 Pentium 2s, Slot A Athlons, and so many sockets in ATX its' not even funny. And I'm NOT EVEN 30 YET!

      It's what is now known as technological progression. If you'd like to race your 1926 Ford Model A against my 2000 Ford Focus, I'm game.

      Get over it.

    25. Re:Flops at Apple are predictable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Apple has also had significant trouble with Jobs at the helm. It's hard to say whether they've been better off with, or without the man. Let's not forget that he was responsible for bringing Markkula and Sculley on board. That worked out real well, didn't it"

      Sculley, probably. (I may not be objective about him; he's why I left Apple. Along with 1200 other people in 1985. Anyway.)

      Markulla, no. He was critical to the company's initial success. Without him, Regis McKenna, and some others early on, Woz and Jobs would have been an obscure footnote in computer history.

      As for dropping the Apple//...get over it. The machine was in production for nearly 14 years. It had no future growth potential.

      I liked them. I owned several Apple//'s, from the ][+ to the //c, and the ///. I wrote some of Apple's software documentation for the Apple///, SOS, ProDOS, //e. The last project I worked on at Apple was the system documentation for the Apple//c.

      It was clear by 1985 that the architecture was living on borrowed time, and time was running out. I'm amazed that it dragged on until 1994.

      I'd still like to get an Apple//c with matching LCD display. :}

    26. Re:Flops at Apple are predictable by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      Dunno ... haven't thought about it 'til now. I've spent the last twenty years writing PC software. Oh well. I just don't trust Apple to be able to maintain a consistent course. Don't trust Microsoft either, for that matter. But from a bread-and-butter standpoint for a software engineer, Apple was a poor career choice after the Apple // series disappeared from widespread use. Sure, systems come and go, but Apple really wanted to get rid of the // and push the Mac, and they wanted to do it fast. I develop industrial controls and data acquisition systems for a living, and until Apple threw away that whole market segment Apple //'s were everywhere. Why? Because (like the IBM PC that followed it) it was a general purpose computer. It had slots. A bunch of them. No overbearing operating system. I could plug in an A/D board, DAC board, EPROM programmer, voice synth, you name it, and turn it into anything I needed. Gee, just like I can still do with a PC. Just like I still can't do with a Mac, at least not in the same degree, or with as many choices.

      Now, having been accustomed to the flexibility of the Apple // series, along comes the MacIntosh. 68000-based, cool. Higher resolution display, not bad ... but damn, no color. No expandability to speak of. From my perspective as a software developer and systems designer, it was one giantass step backward. Jobs had decided that he was no longer in the business of selling general-purpose computer systems (having completely forgotten what it was that made the Apple ][ so successful) and was going to be selling "computing appliances". His term, not mine. Lots of pretty icons, ooh! pull down menus! but utterly useless to me and a lot of people like me. If I'd wanted an appliance I'd have bought a toaster oven ... what I wanted was a real computer, one that I could interface to the real world and make it do things for my customers. What I got was a toy. I was very disappointed in Apple at that point.

      People talk about the "seamless integration between software and hardware in the Apple MacIntosh because Apple controls the hardware." Okay, I'll buy that, so far as it goes. But, looking back over the past couple of decades, the MacIntosh has been anything but consistent in design. In contrast, I still support PC-based systems that I developed back in 1988. I can buy an off-the-shelf, modern PC, install DOS (or even Linux and a DOS emulator) on it and run the stuff. Yes, the architecture sucks, always has sucked, will probably always suck, but it has sucked in a fairly consistent manner for most of that 25 years you referred to. Apple, on the other hand, was never able to even pick a standard goddamn peripheral slot for the MacIntosh, much less encourage development of anything approaching the power and variety of IBM-PC compatible peripherals. The industrial sector was another significant bit of market share that Jobs, in his never-ending quest to foist icons and a single-button mouse upon the world, flushed down the crapper. So this has nothing to do with baggage (you seem to think I'm bitter or something, I'm not ... Apple did me a favor) but it does have to do with trust and consistency over the long haul. In my business, that's everything, and I don't trust Apple (with or without Jobs at the helm) as far as I can throw it.

      And for all you Mac zealots out there ... I'm not criticizing your favorite computer. I happen to think the Mac is cool. I don't, however, feel the same way about the company behind it.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    27. Re:Flops at Apple are predictable by bird2brain · · Score: 1

      Were you, by any chance, down in San Diego in the early days of Apple? Did you write speech synthesis and voice recognition programs using the cassette ports? I think there was a terminal program, too. Are you that guy? If so, THANKS!

  22. "This Website is powered by PostNuke" by richcoder · · Score: 3, Funny

    What a bad place for this notice on this website. I know where to go if I want a server that can't stand the heat.

    -rich

    1. Re:"This Website is powered by PostNuke" by Ostie · · Score: 1

      lol, yeah that notice was pretty dumb,specialy with the : " Although this site is running the PostNuke software it has no other connection to the PostNuke Developers. Please refrain from sending messages about this site or its content to the PostNuke team, the end will result in an ignored e-mail."

    2. Re:"This Website is powered by PostNuke" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      PostNuke is a piece of software (sort of a content management thing, I believe). It's not a hosting service (posting anon to preserve moderations I've already done in this thread).

  23. down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    The database would appear to be hosted on a Newton.

  24. Missing option by tanveer1979 · · Score: 1
    CowboyNeal is my apple

    Umm.... wasn't it a poll?

    --
    My Aurora : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o91ZsGwJYyg
    FB : https://www.facebook.com/TanveersPhotography
  25. Always liked the Tangerine iMac by SamSeaborn · · Score: 2, Interesting
    I don't know what's on the list (site's slashdotted), but many people derided the Tangerine (orange) colored iMac.

    Personally, I always loved that color and thought it was the most stylish one of the lot.

    "she comes in colors everywhere..."

    Sam

    1. Re:Always liked the Tangerine iMac by linuxbert · · Score: 4, Funny

      I was once an admin for a mac only company. they ran Eudora mail sever on a tangerine imac. they ran it on a tangerine imac beacuse nobody in the office wanted that color on their desk.

      I also once worked for a Mac retailer. 2 guys walked off with a tangerine ibook. the one question i had for my co-workers working at the time was how did you not notice them stealing a bright orange laptop. anyway, i doubt they were able to resell it :)

    2. Re:Always liked the Tangerine iMac by bani · · Score: 1

      not many people want a vomit-colored pc on their desktop.

    3. Re:Always liked the Tangerine iMac by Maserati · · Score: 1

      I always thought that Apple Education should have marketed the original iMac form factor in school colors. From the side it looks enough like a football helmet to look good in those colors. If nothing else, the alumni would buy some.

      Just think, you'd finally be able to sell a computer on a Big 10 campus...

      --
      Veteran, Bermuda Triangle Expeditionary Force, 1992-1951
    4. Re:Always liked the Tangerine iMac by PedanticSpellingTrol · · Score: 1

      Clemson University alone ordered enough of those to make the minor retooling profitable.

    5. Re:Always liked the Tangerine iMac by payndz · · Score: 1
      I liked the Tangerine iMac so much that I bought one. In fact, I'm using it right now, 'hockey puck' mouse, 'kiddie' keyboard and all!

      Now the green iMac... that's nasty!

      --
      You must think in Russian.
    6. Re:Always liked the Tangerine iMac by kjamez · · Score: 1

      have you ever been to knoxville tennessee on a saturday? 150,000 weekly would buy that god-awful tangerine laptop your friend stole. (univ. of tenn vols are the most hideous shade of orange you ever did see) ... but i find it hard to believe apple targeted appalacia with their orange powerbooks though.

      --
      you can't have everything, where would you put it?
    7. Re:Always liked the Tangerine iMac by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 1

      Heh, I ran a tangerine imac as a mail server once too. I remember seeing an article about the popularity of imac colors. Tangerine ones were something like 10% of sales in the U.S. and 90% of the sales in Japan.

  26. Great a mirror of "Problem in Database" message by rufusdufus · · Score: 1

    nothing rescued here

  27. Flops, big deal! by mOoZik · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Any company that challenges the state of technology at any given time has to have flops. Hell, ANY business that strives to push the boundary has to have flops. Has MS had flops? Yep. Has GE? Yep. But the underlying strength of any company is how it deals with those flops, how it changes direction, how it survives, and how it kicks ass in the long run. However, the list would be interesting to see...though it's not loading for me.

    1. Re:Flops, big deal! by Esion+Modnar · · Score: 1
      Any company that challenges the state of technology at any given time has to have flops.

      The person (or company) who doesn't make mistakes, has never accomplished much of anything. For all I know, Ben Franklin may have made this observation at some point or other.

      --

      They say the first thing to go is your penis. Well, it's either that or your brain. I forget which...
    2. Re:Flops, big deal! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I need the email of Linus Torvalds. Please email me [mailto]. :)

      If you don't know how to find out Linus's current email address, no one here will waste his time by giving it to you. Do your own research, and maybe you'll find you don't need to email Linus at all.

    3. Re:Flops, big deal! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, not all companies have had flops. Take AT&T or Sun for example, both pushers of technology, both without flops.

  28. Pathetic by drgath159 · · Score: 2, Informative

    lol... mirrordot couldn't even grab the story before the server melted.

  29. Two words... by tattoi.nobori · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Microsoft Bob.

    (For every Cube Apple produces, Microsoft is happy to come back with a Windows ME or MS Passport. At least with Apple, the flagship OS doesn't kick you in the jewels every time you sit down to use it. ^_^)

    1. Re:Two words... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have you ever used MacOS 1 through 9?

      They sucked to no end. God how I *HATED* MacOS.

      Then OS X came out and I can't complain about it.

      Guess what, though? I can't complain about Windows XP though, either.

    2. Re:Two words... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've personally run every Mac OS between 1 and 9 (inclusive), and the only ones that really sucked were 8.5 and later.

      The original Mac OS performed what it was meant to, so dont blast it for not having USB support.

      Mac OSes up to 6 were skipped over by most consumers, and 6 really hit a good stride. Most remember that 6.0.5 was pretty refined, and the only addition with 6.0.8 was new printer drivers.

      Mac OS 7 and 7.1 (it was a pro version), were really the start of the modern Mac OS. Stable, loaded with features, and with a spiffy new interface. And modifiable to anyone's heart's content.

      Mac OS 8's additions were mostly in modern functionality (hardware support, new protocols, etc), without loosing more than a little stability. Worthy of honor though.

      After that, it was open game.
      But Mac OS had high points before X.

    3. Re:Two words... by Lehk228 · · Score: 1

      Guess what, though? I can't complain about Windows XP though, either.

      I take it you don't add or remove USB devices while windows is booting up or shutting down? I have personally witnessed three boot partitions be corrupted this way, MY own machine was nuked by removing a keyboard during shutdown, the guy across the hall at school had his nuked by a flash drive inserted during bootup, and the same event messed up a Lab computer

      --
      Snowden and Manning are heroes.
    4. Re:Two words... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ^ Distorted, Mac-centric history at best.

      When Apple was pushing System 7 (which was basically System 6 + color icons), Microsoft and IBM were delivering modern OSes with pre-emptive multitasking and real memory protection. Apple knew "Blue" was a stopgap, they just totally failed to ship a replacement in any reasonable timeframe.

    5. Re:Two words... by bonch · · Score: 1

      You know, I really don't get Slashdotters' obsession with Microsoft Bob. It wasn't a major release. It was just a simple application shell for Windows, was released over ten years ago, and it wasn't like it was marketed heavily as some big, new thing. It was just some desktop accessory. Slashdotters', in there haste to hate anything Microsoft, have latched onto it and built it into some huge thing it never was. I don't even remember Microsoft Bob until someone on Slashdot mentions it yet another time.

      Do you realize how many third-party replacement shells existed at that time? I remember buying an AST Advantage! computer that completely replaced Program Manager with a customizable interface that looked gorgeous in comparison. Trouble was, you couldn't install anything, so I learned to enable Program Manager and never go back.

      Point being, Microsoft Bob is not that big a deal. I doubt Bill Gates even cared all that much about it, despite his wife's involvement. Microsoft was busy trying to get Windows '93 out the door to kick OS/2's ass and wouldn't succeed until two years later.

    6. Re:Two words... by Fear+the+Clam · · Score: 1

      it wasn't like it was marketed heavily as some big, new thing

      Actually, it was. Huge store displays, lots of press. The box even said "Introducing Hard-working, Easy-going Software Everyone Will Use."

      Even if it wasn't marketed heavily, that's still pretty ominous.

    7. Re:Two words... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      YHBT. YHL. HAND.

      Love,
      bonch (aka rd_syringe aka Overly Critical Guy)

  30. The real story is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Apple misjudged product availability and actually ran out of iMac G4's for two months before they released the iMac G5"

    In reality, nobody was buying the iMac G4, and so Apple judged they had enough in the pipeline and dealer's shelves to last.

    Maybe they didn't get it quite right, but it made no sense to continue making a product that was not a good seller for Apple.

    That's the real story.

  31. Jobs' Secret Police... by SpottedKuh · · Score: 2, Funny

    ...got to him.

    Problem in Database Connection

    Speak poorly of Apple, and you will suffer. The smily face in my Finder window is merely a distraction.

  32. Thank goodness for the flops by jockm · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Because the only way you can innovate and try and make better is by getting out there and trying risky things and learning from your mistakes. I applaud any company willing go out and try these things.

    --

    What do you know I wrote a novel
  33. Easy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The one button mouse...Oh, wait they're still shipping that thing?

  34. Here is a picture of the Apple ///. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    http://www.mynewoffice.com/pcmuseum/AppleIII_336.j pg

    You have to admit that it is cool looking. Weird-ass keyboard (why make a numerical keyboard with just subtraction?!), but cool looking.

    1. Re:Here is a picture of the Apple ///. by jd · · Score: 2, Funny

      Just one question. Which game needs the top-row '9' key all the time?

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    2. Re:Here is a picture of the Apple ///. by richcoder · · Score: 1

      This picture does prove that Jobs didn't always require beutiful design of his products.

      -rich

    3. Re:Here is a picture of the Apple ///. by mgkimsal2 · · Score: 1

      (why make a numerical keyboard with just subtraction?!),

      Think of people doing data entry - you'll probably have dashes between product codes (1105-97) more often than you'd have people doing spreadsheet work. Just a hunch...

    4. Re:Here is a picture of the Apple ///. by realdpk · · Score: 4, Funny

      Weird-ass keyboard (why make a numerical keyboard with just subtraction?!), but cool looking.

      More buttons would confuse users. You can perform any basic arithmetic operation with that keypad *.

      Subtraction? x, -, y, ENTER.
      Addition? x, -, -, y, ENTER.
      Multiplication? 4, -, -, 4, -, -, 4, (... so on ...) ENTER.

      So much less complicated than our "modern computers" with our * and / and + keys.

      * Not including division.

    5. Re:Here is a picture of the Apple ///. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, it's for entering negative numbers. The addition itself is done with your spreadsheet program, duh. (People in 1981 weren't sophisticated enough to use spreadsheet programs as makeshift inventory apps :)

  35. Egg Freckles by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Egg Freckles

    1. Re:Egg Freckles by tjarrett · · Score: 1

      Very nice--too bad there aren't other Newton users in the discussion to appreciate the joke.

  36. Cube "Cracks" by UserChrisCanter4 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I dunno, I honestly thought the cube "cracks" could take the place of something as lame as the asinine iMac colors.

    For those who don't remember, the Cubes would occasionally develop these "cracks," for lack of a better term. IIRC, owners started to see hairline fissures slowly appear underneath the ploycarbonate surface. Apple played it off by saying it added to the "personality" of the cubes, since each set of cracks was unique.

    Heck, I love the cubes and I'd probably put them in that blunder list; if Apple could've figured out a way to make them a bit more powerful or a bit cheaper, they may have been succesful. As it was, their exorbitant pricing simply reinforced the notion that "macs are too expensive."

    1. Re:Cube "Cracks" by Grave_Rose · · Score: 0

      I used to work retail here in Ottawa and, IIRC, the Cubes came out around Winter and what a lot of people would do is put them in their car trunks (-20 degree weather), do some more shopping, go home (+22 degrees), plug them in right away and wondered why they cracked.

      --
      !ekoj on si aixelsyD
    2. Re:Cube "Cracks" by Ohreally_factor · · Score: 1

      I agree, that was a huge marketing blunder. They probably could have made a fortune if they had focused attention on the divination aspects of the cracks, maybe bundled an iDivination app with iLife. Sales to the ancient Chinese and ancient Roman market segment would have been through the roof.

      --
      It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
    3. Re:Cube "Cracks" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cracks did not develop. They were the lines where two sides of the polycarbonate material met. I expect plastics technology has devloped enough by now that lines would not be visible. But at the time Apple released the Cube they were par for the course, and only a flaw because Apple users (rightfully) expected perfection from a computer costing upwards of $2,500. The real problem with the Cube was the cooling system, ports facing down, and no expansion (at the price). Don't make a computer than looks like a pedestal and then have the heat vent require nothing placed on top. Don't have ports that are even more inaccesible than the ones on the back of a regular-sized computer. And, finally, don't charge more than what the regular desktop version of the computer (with expandability) costs and expect to make any in-roads except into the die-hard market. As others have said, the Mac mini is the new Cube. Except the Mac mini is going to be successful. Apple has just opened up a huge new market. Price and aesthetic perfection in one package.

    4. Re:Cube "Cracks" by realdpk · · Score: 1

      You're not supposed to put anything on top of the Mac mini, either. One of the "flop"/mistakes not learned from, I suppose. :)

      And I was actually trying to picture it sitting under my LCD, too. Heh. Oh well. :)

    5. Re:Cube "Cracks" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've never seen the Mac mini. I guess I've never been that interested.

      But if the problem you're stating is an issue, wouldn't something simple like a clear acrylic arch that was tall enough to slide the mini under, flat enough on top to rest a monitor on, and spacious enough to provide proper ventilation be just what the doctor ordered? Do they already have something like this (maybe I ought to have built it myself before posting it here...)?

    6. Re:Cube "Cracks" by ztirffritz · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I'm a Plastic Engineer. Those cracks are not so easy to eliminate. On a molded 2 cm thick piece of PolyCarbonate, it is very difficult eliminate internal stresses. It can be done, but the cycle times on the molding process probably would be measured in hours instead of minutes or seconds. If they had introduced a heavily "cracked" model of the Cube they probably could have gotten away with saying it was "character marks". All that they would have to do is spead up the cycle time and build in some more internal stresses. Pop a piping hot piece of plastic into a tank of ice water and then build a computer in it! I think that it would have looked cool.

      --
      Why doesn't anything interesting happen when I have mod points?
    7. Re:Cube "Cracks" by brarrr · · Score: 1

      No. No. No. The cracks are a result of mold design - the plastic flowing in comes around the pins from both sides and two cooled faces meet, resulting in a slightly lower transition temperature, with the apperance of a 'crack'. If all of the injection molded pieces you ever saw were made of such high clarity material, you'd see similar 'cracks' abound.

      nothing that can be done about that but suck it up.

      --
      to email me: take my /. handle and append .net preceded by charter.
    8. Re:Cube "Cracks" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm a Plastic Engineer.

      Really? Is that sort of like an action figure with a glasses and a pocket protector?

    9. Re:Cube "Cracks" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've got two 4 year old cubes and no cracks. hmmm. especially since they (still) run 24/7.

      Which one doesn't belong?

      orange

      green

      red

      beige

      blue

      purple

    10. Re:Cube "Cracks" by FuturePastNow · · Score: 1

      You're not supposed to put anything on top of it because that's where the wi-fi and bluetooth antennas go. It could block the reception. I guess it might also scratch up the white plastic on the top, but everything Apple makes scratches easily. If you don't use wireless and don't care about scratches you probably won't be able to see anyway, I don't see how setting something on top of the mini could cause a problem.

      --
      Give a man fire, and you warm him for the night. Set a man on fire, and you warm him for the rest of his life.
    11. Re:Cube "Cracks" by ztirffritz · · Score: 1

      Those would be flow lines, and would exist from the instant it was popped out of the mold. The cracks that everyone bitched about were the result of internal stresses and developed over time. ie, they purchased a perfectly clear cube and one month later it had little spider-web like cracks in the case.

      --
      Why doesn't anything interesting happen when I have mod points?
    12. Re:Cube "Cracks" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      If they had introduced a heavily "cracked" model of the Cube they probably could have gotten away with saying it was "character marks".

      "It's not a bug, it's a feature!"

      Hmm...

    13. Re:Cube "Cracks" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      nein. i worked at apple, on the cube team and later in enclosures. i've read the user reports, seen the parts, watched the mold flow analysis, and the only reported issues with cracks were flow lines. whether they showed up over time or were existing at purchase is another issue, but they're a fact of life in such products.

  37. Limits of Innovation by meehawl · · Score: 0, Troll
    --

    Da Blog
    1. Re:Limits of Innovation by Omniscientist · · Score: 1

      I think its due to the fact of how aggressively marketed Microsoft's products were and are. It has almost nothing to do with the technology, but the business aspect behind it.

    2. Re:Limits of Innovation by LMCBoy · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Clearly, by your logic, Ferrari is a failed car brand, because there are not nearly as many Ferraris sold as Hondas, or Toyotas, or Fords.

      --
      Liberal (adj.): Free from bigotry; open to progress; tolerant of others.
    3. Re:Limits of Innovation by realdpk · · Score: 1

      Ferarri was never the top vendor for vehicles.

    4. Re:Limits of Innovation by oldwolf13 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I'm no fan of apple (I do like them, just not all their fanbois... same thing as linux, and to a lesser degree, windows)

      But my guess is three things... PRICE and PIRACY.

      Apple boxes are way too high priced for what you get, IMHO and the opinions of ALOT of people... if I can do the same thing on a PC for half the price, I will). Even their high end systems, are not high end by my standards... I mean if I'm paying close to $3000 (CND money) for a machine, I expect it to have a better video card then a Radeon 9600 (currently i have a 9800 pro which cost me $400 CND.. the whole machine it's in .. Athlon XP 2800+ probably cost me $1200... with monitor)

      Geek factor.. even tho I hate the term geek, nerd is much better. I prefer to build my own machines, even tho it's not very exciting anymore as I've done it a billion times, I prefer to chose every piece that is going into it.

      Piracy... who here knows someone (besides a company) that pays for all their software? Piracy is accepted by most people as a worthwhile risk. It's much harder to find "warez" for the macs then for pcs. Incidently, I believe this is also a contributing factor as why Windows has the monopoly... both pirating of their OS, and of the apps for it. Kinda funny how MS is trying to fight it now.

      Also, I have never met anyone who bought a mac to throw Linux on... altho I know it is possible. Yet friends of mine, and myself included, have bought machines specifically for linux (or BSD)

      --
      If I can't smoke and swear I'm fucked.
    5. Re:Limits of Innovation by dr.badass · · Score: 4, Interesting

      If Apple is really the brains of the industry--if its products are so much better than Microsoft's or Dell's or IBM's or Hewlett-Packard's--then why is the company so damned small?

      Does the size of a company determine the quality of it's product?
      Does the quality of a product determine it's company's size?

      If you answer yes to either of those questions, you're out of your fucking mind.

      I'd also like to point out that the year-old article you're linking to predicts that the iPod will be crushed by competitors such as the Dell DJ "selling for as little as $299", that the iTunes Music Store will be crushed by Wal-Mart, Microsoft, and Sony, and that it will take "at least a year" for Apple to sell 100 million songs. None of these things are even remotely true.

      --
      Don't become a regular here -- you will become retarded.
    6. Re:Limits of Innovation by Moofie · · Score: 1

      So what? My Powerbook works great, and I don't give a damn if more people buy Acers than Macs. They're welcome to their choices...they do not impact mine.

      Market share is just not that important.

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    7. Re:Limits of Innovation by rodgerd · · Score: 1

      No, by his logic Ford would be a failure if they'd gone from "inventor of the mass-market car" to "bit player with less market share than Porsche"

    8. Re:Limits of Innovation by jtshaw · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I bought a Dual G5 to put linux on it in a lab at work. I got one of there "cluster node" Xserves that is now running Gentoo Linux PPC64. It is exactly what I needed it to be... fast, fast, and more fast. Especially with that nice 1.15 Ghz. system bus and 2GB of DDR400 memory.

      Sure, installing it with on a serial port console was a little annoying... but once we got an iso setup right it wasn't too bad.

      I also don't happen to think 3k for a dual processor box with a Nvidia 6800 Ultra DDL card capable of driving two 30" 2560x1600 resolution displays is too bad a price.

      Course... that being said, I do still have a x86 PC running linux on my desktop.

    9. Re:Limits of Innovation by Drawsalot · · Score: 1

      I concur. My Titanium Powerbook (and the macs at my business) are mine by choice. The lowest common demominator is not always the best choice, even if the cheapest.

    10. Re:Limits of Innovation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      return -ESTRAWMAN;

      I challenge you to compile a list of bad decisions Acer has made. I bet you you won't find "Spent many years and several millions of dollars to develop an operating system that was to compete with OS/2 and UNIX only to be canned without release" on that list.

    11. Re:Limits of Innovation by Moofie · · Score: 2, Funny

      Log in and we can talk.

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    12. Re:Limits of Innovation by NanoGator · · Score: 1

      "Clearly, by your logic, Ferrari is a failed car brand, because there are not nearly as many Ferraris sold as Hondas, or Toyotas, or Fords."

      Heh. Thought I was in a Nintendo thread for a moment.

      --
      "Derp de derp."
    13. Re:Limits of Innovation by flyingsquid · · Score: 1, Insightful
      If Apple is really the brains of the industry--if its products are so much better than Microsoft's or Dell's or IBM's or Hewlett-Packard's--then why is the company so damned small? ... The father of the PC--and, remember, the industry's number-one vendor in 1980--has since sunk to a lowly ninth, behind competitors Dell, Hewlett-Packard, and IBM, just for starters. Sadly, Apple is also behind such no-namers as Acer (seventh) and Legend (eighth). So much for innovation and creativity.

      Is Apple a success? Depends on how you measure it. In terms of market share for boxes and OSes, they're pretty much a failure.

      In terms of changing the world with the Apple II, then the Mac, putting style into computers, creating the iPod, launching iTunes... well, yes you can (correctly) point out that they weren't exactly first with these things. The Altair was the first home computer, Xerox did a lot of the GUI innovation, Apple wasn't the first to make a high-capacity MP3 player. But Apple has been revolutionary in doing more to take these technologies mainstream than anyone else. In those terms, they're a success. Apple is a success at making incredible products that people feel very emotional about (love AND hate, speaking as someone who got into computers through the Apple IIe). Microsoft is an insanely great money-making machine, Apple has a legacy of creating insanely great (sometimes just insane) machines and software.

      So who would you rather be? Gates, with enough money to buy Bolivia? Or Jobs, who has less money (still more than you could ever use) and a legacy of cool innovation?

    14. Re:Limits of Innovation by Captain+Splendid · · Score: 2, Informative
      I'll have to disagree with you on the piracy issues. As a Mac owner and builder of my own PCs I can tell you that the "warez" situation is very different, but not in the way you think.

      Free or cracked/hacked software is just as available for the Mac platform as it is for the PC.. What I found in the Mac community was that the process was more...organized. Neat. Tidy.

      For example, finding a serial for QT on the PC, while easy, necessitates me navigating through up to a dozen poorly layed-out webpages crawling with pop-ups, exploits and viruses,

      On the Mac, however, I just needed to make sure I had downloaded the latest list for an elegant and easy to use "serial directory" program that had been around for years and was well-trusted and well-updated.

      Basically, as with everything else, the Mac can do whatever the PC can, just with more style :)

      --
      Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
    15. Re:Limits of Innovation by willCode4Beer.com · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Does the size of a company determine the quality of it's product?
      no one in their right mind would say yes to this.

      Does the quality of a product determine it's company's size?
      Well, the quality of a company's products should contribute to its growth, and thus size.

      On to TFA. I think that a company without a history of great failures will never have great innovations. The history of a willingness to accept the risk of failure is a sure sign that they are interested in innovation. I think Apple's problem has been less their products and more a misunderstanding of the market.

      The Newton was pretty cool and innovative for the time. The market just wasn't ready at the time, and their marketing left a lot to be desired. Palm came in a few years later (with a less functional product) with some kick butt marketing and succeeded.

      Now to argue against myself: Success in business comes from knowing the market, the product is secondary. For example, McDonalds sells the absolutely worst hamburger of any fast food chain. They also sell more than all the other chains combined.

      --
      ----- If communism is a system where the government owns business, what do you call a system where business owns govern
    16. Re:Limits of Innovation by autopr0n · · Score: 1

      If the average Ferrari cost $30k, and they still sold the same number, then yes, they would be a failure.

      --
      autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
    17. Re:Limits of Innovation by tim256 · · Score: 1

      Apple definately makes some innovative products. I agree that they don't take their products to the same level that Microsoft does. For example, I really don't understand why Apple doesn't put in a little work and port the Mac OS to the x86 architecture. Sure they would lose money on hardware sales, but they could really compete with Windows. Think of all the people who would pick OS X over Windows if given the choice. If I could get a fast machine running OS X for the same price as a fast machine running Windows, I would pick OS X.

    18. Re:Limits of Innovation by superpulpsicle · · Score: 1

      Marketing do matter, but Mac OS still haven't figured out a way to play games.

      Something so simple yet still not nearly as competitive as windows in 2005. What am I saying, I don't think Mac Gaming is even as competitive as linux. Mac gaming is virtually nonexistent.

    19. Re:Limits of Innovation by HuguesT · · Score: 3, Informative

      I wouldn't say Mac gaming is non-existent. If you are not dying to play the latest titles you can find many decent games on Macs, but they are pricy.

      Mac game typically come out one year after their PC equivalent, cost the same as the PC version when it was first shipped, and don't come down in price very fast.

      It's almost impossible to find games for Macs on shelves even at Apple stores (they usually have a few token ones). You need to buy them online.

      However a few publishers do have Mac-PC games in the same box like for the Myst series.

      As for Linux the situation is not very good. Of recent memory only the Neverwinter and the ID games series have been good on Linux. The rest must be run through Cedega/WineX, and this is *hard*.

      Neither Linux or Mac games are a patch on the Windows scene, and that one is being overtaken by consoles at the moment.

    20. Re:Limits of Innovation by Theora · · Score: 1

      Mac Gaming might be lagging well behind PCs now but where do you think Sims (SimCity) and Tetris came from?

    21. Re:Limits of Innovation by NanoGator · · Score: 1

      "The Newton was pretty cool and innovative for the time. The market just wasn't ready at the time, and their marketing left a lot to be desired. Palm came in a few years later (with a less functional product) with some kick butt marketing and succeeded."

      Note: I'm only commenting on this particular part of your post, not your whole point.

      The Newton's failure wasn't because the market wasn't ready. It was because it was too large, too pricey, and too much like a computer. The Palm was tiny, had a very successful purpose it excelled at, and was considerably cheaper. It was more appliance than laptop. Apple may have been innovative with the Newton, but the design was doomed to fail. It was, at best, a niche product. Which is fine, provided they made a profit. (In that case, I'd probably retract the 'failure' comment.) But Palm did the right thing with their unit despite being 'less functional'.

      --
      "Derp de derp."
    22. Re:Limits of Innovation by SteeldrivingJon · · Score: 0



      Why has Ashley Simpson, who can't sing, and probably can't play, and probably can't write a song, sold far more records than Neko Case, who has far more talent?

      --
      September 2011: Looking for Cocoa/iOS work in Boston area Cocoa Programmer Quincy, MA
    23. Re:Limits of Innovation by rjung2k · · Score: 1

      Apple boxes are way too high priced for what you get, IMHO and the opinions of ALOT of people.

      Too bad for you that prices aren't set by opinion alone.

      As the saying goes, you get what you paid for. If you buy cheap, don't complain at the cheap security that lets your PC get buried under an avalanche of trojans and spyware...

    24. Re:Limits of Innovation by SteeldrivingJon · · Score: 1

      Apple boxes are way too high priced for what you get

      Starbucks sells coffee that costs about $4 more than the ingredients.

      There are probably lots of people who don't even flinch at dropping a Mac Mini's price-worth of money at Starbucks over the course of a year.

      Some probably spend an iBook's-worth.

      --
      September 2011: Looking for Cocoa/iOS work in Boston area Cocoa Programmer Quincy, MA
    25. Re:Limits of Innovation by GlassHeart · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Is Apple a success? Depends on how you measure it. In terms of market share for boxes and OSes, they're pretty much a failure.

      So is BMW. Not all business models are alike.

      Unfortunately, the only measure of success for a public corporation is whether it makes money. Apple makes money. Apple is a successful company. Just because Microsoft makes even more money doesn't mean that Apple (or any other successful company) is a failure.

    26. Re:Limits of Innovation by Skinny+Rav · · Score: 1

      I bought a Dual G5 to put linux on it in a lab at work. I got one of there "cluster node" Xserves that is now running Gentoo Linux PPC64.

      Course... that being said, I do still have a x86 PC running linux on my desktop.


      This is oh sooooo cool!!

      Mac in the server room, Linux on the desktop *grin*

      Raf

    27. Re:Limits of Innovation by ThePhilips · · Score: 1
      People! Hear this! Get this!

      Apple is about new cool things. It cannot compete with Dell. (*Now* we have complete antonym of "Apple" - "Dell", now it is easier to compare).

      If you want to make widely used computer systems, you have to bow to many customers & companies and their needs.

      Remember this: Apple bows no-one. It is on innovative edge. It costs much. And they do mistake too. But it pays off too.

      And you cannot be innovaitve and large at the same time. Widely used technologies take long time to create market - by time technology has chance for wide-spread huge market, Apple is already on something new.

      P.S. iPod being recent exception.

      P.P.S. Think of Apple as of engineering company. They generally - and Jobs in particular - do things people use every day. And Apple engineers are first to use this technologies - they their own dog food. They don't do recket science - they do things person can/want to have at home. And they know it not from analyst's papers, but from real life - they do things for themselves. Nothing more. Bit like history of Porsche - they started like little company to do *good* car for themselves and their friends. They are small, vvvery pricy, but they are still around because they are still very innovative. Thou Apple likes more to parallel itself with BMW ;-)

      --
      All hope abandon ye who enter here.
    28. Re:Limits of Innovation by Agent__Smith · · Score: 0

      "Piracy... who here knows someone (besides a company) that pays for all their software? Piracy is accepted by most people as a worthwhile risk. It's much harder to find "warez" for the macs then for pcs. Incidently, I believe this is also a contributing factor as why Windows has the monopoly... both pirating of their OS, and of the apps for it. Kinda funny how MS is trying to fight it now."

      I made the switch to a MAC a few months back, and it is the first computer I have ever had where every piece of software on it is legit, purchased and registered. This is not due to difficulty of piracy for a MAC.

      If I really want to, the software is there for the taking. It has more due with the fact that I think of my TITANIUM G4 PowerBook as a better machine. I paid a premium for it, and I think of it as a cut above my PCs. Putting pirated warez on this machine would be like putting cheap gas in a Porche or BMW. I am more likely to put cheap gas and aftermarket parts on/in a civic or Neon, just as I was more likely to look for pirated stuff on my PCs.

      I also like the MAC software enough to pay for it. In a word, IT JUST WORKS! I would pay for the microsoft counterparts too, if Bill Gates didn't believe that the world should be his BETA tester.

      --
      "It seems that we are at the age where life stops giving us things, and starts taking them away..." Indiana Jones
    29. Re:Limits of Innovation by oldwolf13 · · Score: 1

      I'm tired of hearing about mac users say things like this, to try to justify their choice.

      I'm a very competent admin, and i never have a problem with this on my windows or linux (surprise!) boxes.

      If the mac had the install base that the mac does, I bet you anything that it'd have just as much ad/spy/crapware.

      Nothing short of a lock out can stop ignorant users from installing crap.

      Plus are you trying to say the mac is bulletproof? Even OpenBSD which has done an extensive code review for security has been cracked.

      --
      If I can't smoke and swear I'm fucked.
    30. Re:Limits of Innovation by R.Caley · · Score: 1
      Geek factor.. even tho I hate the term geek, nerd is much better. I prefer to build my own machines, even tho it's not very exciting anymore as I've done it a billion times, I prefer to chose every piece that is going into it.

      Geek factor II.. Apple put a lot of effort into the interface and the pretty plastic case, but bugger all into the OS itself. MacOS 9 was still an embarassment from an IT POV, single processing, no useful memory management. Nothing like having to reboot because my web browser got in a knot to convince me I was using a toy, not a computer.

      --
      _O_
      .|<
      The named which can be named is not the true named
    31. Re:Limits of Innovation by ynohoo · · Score: 1

      Apple: the computer for people who care more about furniture than software.

    32. Re:Limits of Innovation by shrykk · · Score: 1

      I really don't understand why Apple doesn't put in a little work and port the Mac OS to the x86 architecture.

      Because they're a hardware company. To do as you say would mean a fundamental change in their business - they would go from a hardware and OS vendor (like Sun) to an OS vendor (like Microsoft). Even if you think it would be successful, it would be a huge business change and an enormous risk. Apple seem to be occupying a niche with their systems - to change their business so they are competing only with Microsoft would invite Microsoft to crush them (despite the superiority of OSX).

      --
      #define struct union /* Reduce memory usage */
    33. Re:Limits of Innovation by gilesjuk · · Score: 1

      Most of their profits are thanks to the iPod, without it they might be barely making profits right now. Their computers are admired by many but they're too expensive for a complete Apple system (mini Mac isn't a complete system), you'd not want to use an ugly monitor with a Mac.

    34. Re:Limits of Innovation by QMO · · Score: 1

      Quote: "As the saying goes, you get what you paid for."

      In the case of Windows, you pay for a monopoly.
      In the case of Pepsi, Coke, most beer (at least in the US), and many other things you pay for a lot of fancy advertising.

      In the case of Macs, you pay some for advertising, some for the people that design the nifty-looking stuff, some for R&D, etc.

      Again Quote: "As the saying goes, you get what you paid for."

      Advertising works, and sometimes we get fooled, and pay for it.

      --
      Exam 4/C again. Maybe I'll do better this time.
    35. Re:Limits of Innovation by The+Slashdot+Guy · · Score: 1

      Don't all those people that pay too much for coffee at Starbucks already own a Mac?

    36. Re:Limits of Innovation by stallard · · Score: 1

      Then perhaps it's time that you check out OS X. I think you, and a lot of people, are missing a vital point. Mac users use the platform because it makes sense to them. Why do we go around telling everyone how great we think they are? Because we think they're so wonderful, that we just want to share it with you. That's all. Also, before you speak poorly of a platform, you should at least make a solid attempt at using it. Otherwise, just respond "I don't think it's for me."

      --
      You know you like it.
    37. Re:Limits of Innovation by hey! · · Score: 1

      Why I agree with the notion that innovation is not a guarantee of success, that article you linked was a fetid pile of rubbish. My head spun as the author mixed up gross figures with net figures, and compared software revenues for a hardware company to total revenus for a software company.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    38. Re:Limits of Innovation by R.Caley · · Score: 1
      Then perhaps it's time that you check out OS X.

      Yes, they finally made the great leap forwards into the 1970s. But we were talking about Apple's history.

      Also, before you speak poorly of a platform, you should at least make a solid attempt at using it.

      Er, how do you think I got so pissed off about having to reboot every time the web browser hung? The fact that after each such crash qit took half an eon for MacOs 9 to boot up on the iMac I was using did a lot to confirm my opinion of their priorites too. Clearly the eye candy was more important that actual practical usability.

      OS X takes as long to boot and has as much pointless eye candy, and the same brain dead one-thing-at-a-time GUI, but needs to be rebooted much less often. Might even be enough to get me to use a Mac for real work rather than just cross paltform testing if I end up with one in the room anyway.

      --
      _O_
      .|<
      The named which can be named is not the true named
    39. Re:Limits of Innovation by thedbp · · Score: 1

      If you are not dying to play the latest titles you can find many decent games on Macs, but they are pricy.
      Not true, go to an Apple store. Even the smaller stores have an entire 8 rack shelf dedicated to games, and they really aren't all that pricey.

      Mac game typically come out one year after their PC equivalent, cost the same as the PC version when it was first shipped, and don't come down in price very fast.
      Wrong. Many games now come out simultaneously, and that is getting to the norm more and more, thanks to tech that allows porting of DirectX code to OpenGL easily and quickly. And of course they cost the same as the PC version on first release. These companies have to pay their employees.

      It's almost impossible to find games for Macs on shelves even at Apple stores (they usually have a few token ones). You need to buy them online.
      You've obviously never been to an Apple store. Of course online selection is better - there's no space constraints. Apple store's aren't the size of a Best Buy or a Circuit City. They have a ton of products to cram into a small space. But the game selection is actually quite large, and is given more shelf space than many other, more 'traditional' mac software markets like audio/video production.

      Neither Linux or Mac games are a patch on the Windows scene, and that one is being overtaken by consoles at the moment.(/i>
      Bingo. Anyone who's serious about games needs to buy a console. PCs haven't been at the forefront of gaming for a couple years now. The cost involved in having a super killer PC gaming box far outstrips the performance gains over a console. And if you really have that much time and money to waste just to play games, I implore you, read a book or get another hobby.

    40. Re:Limits of Innovation by INeededALogin · · Score: 1

      Er, how do you think I got so pissed off about having to reboot every time the web browser hung?

      As a Mac user today, I honestly have to say that anyone who used a Mac from 1995-1999(OS X) really missed out on a much more advanced Microsoft product. Likewise, anyone who is still using Windows today is now missing out.

      OS X takes as long to boot and has as much pointless eye candy, and the same brain dead one-thing-at-a-time GUI

      some examples would be nice. OS X rarely needs rebooting. For a laptop, you never have to shut it down and the fast on feature gives you a working desktop before you can fully open screen.

      No Eye Candy is pointless if it has been labeled eye candy. It is part of the finished product. Today, if a Mac application has a really bad icon... it almost is a sure thing that it is poorly written. Attention to details is everything.

      one thing at a time gui? If you are complaining about the 1 mouse button... Buy a 2 button mouse(it works). If you are complaining about the layout of the OS, you need to learn how to use it. cmd+tab(switches apps) and cmd+`(switches windows). Bundle that with expose, the ability to effect windows without losing focus of the current window(hold the cmd button down when using the mouse), and the drag and drop of just about everything... I think you are confused.

    41. Re:Limits of Innovation by k96822 · · Score: 1

      I can't find a PC that has the options my PowerMac G5 has for the same price of $1,500. For example, the G5 comes with digital in-out. I'd have to buy add an Audigy to the PC to get that kind of functionality. Plus, the G5 is far quieter than a PC (although the fan noise it does make is annoying in a very quiet room; not white-noise). If you take what you get altogether and integrated, you still get more with Apple...

      ...until you try to buy one from the one or, if you're lucky, two Apple dealers within 100 miles who absolutely will not take returns and will charge you $100 an hour for repairs (for those people who do not repair their own PCs). This is where the Apple really falls short, IMHO. I am forced to deal with people who have the attitude, "What are you going to do -- buy it somewhere else???" Insert evil-cackle here. Imagine, a salesman saying to you, "Good thing you didn't register it. If you did, you'd be stuck with it." when I returned my iMac for an upgrade to a full G5 tower instead. Yes, I offered to give them $1,500 more when you count in the 20" studio display and RAM upgrade I bought, yet they still gave me 'tude like that.

      Oh, that and the software problem. Adobe has stopped supporting FrameMaker 7 for the Macintosh. Now, I have to use OpenOffice, which is -- frankly -- clunky on the Mac. As if I'm going to shovel out $400 for Office. Yikes.

    42. Re:Limits of Innovation by BeerCat · · Score: 1

      a lot of effort into the interface... but bugger all into the OS itself. ... Nothing like having to reboot because my web browser got in a knot to convince me I was using a toy, not a computer.

      Nothing like having to reboot because I'd just looked at my network settings, without changing them, to convince me that I was using a toy. Oh wait. that was Windows 95, not OS 9.

      --
      "She's furniture with a pulse"
    43. Re:Limits of Innovation by Squozen · · Score: 1

      Yes, OS 9 sucked. It doesn't exist anymore. Get with the program, OS X is an *excellent* geek OS.

    44. Re:Limits of Innovation by kristjansson · · Score: 1

      They also have ported their OS to x86. Twice, in fact. The first time was in the early '90's, with the Star Trek project, which culminated in System 7 booting on x86 and a huge internal conundrum, and was killed because Apple is, first and foremost, a hardware company. Star Trek was also never released to the general public, although it would be really interesting to see the source for it...

      Darwin is the second port of MacOS to x86, albeit this version is stripped down to just the core OS. My guess is, its x86 port was done to insure that the underlying OS core would port to different architectures. On the bright side, most of the rest of OS X should be relatively easy to port from unoptimized source code for the rest of the system...

    45. Re:Limits of Innovation by SteeldrivingJon · · Score: 1


      The Darwin port to X86 is a descendant of NeXT's ports of their operating system to X86, Sparc, and HP PA-RISC.

      In fact, x86 was the primary platform on which NeXT's operating system ran at the time of the merger.

      Apple more or less got it free with the acquisition.

      It has no connection to Star Trek.

      --
      September 2011: Looking for Cocoa/iOS work in Boston area Cocoa Programmer Quincy, MA
    46. Re:Limits of Innovation by snilloc · · Score: 1

      There are certain styles of games that just aren't easily played on a console. Some games just need a mouse, and the keyboard doesn't hurt either. (Showing their age, but Diablo II, Starcraft, probably Civ type games too). Yes, I know there are add-on keyboards and such for consoles, but they aren't standard. On the other hand, it's sort of silly to have gamepad-style peripherals for a PC anymore because those games are indeed better played on a console.

    47. Re:Limits of Innovation by TheoGB · · Score: 1

      by Omniscientist (806841) I think its due to the fact of how aggressively marketed Microsoft's products were and are. It has almost nothing to do with the technology, but the business aspect behind it. Given that if you watch a hollywood movie you'd be forgiven for thinking Apple products are the only ones on the market that's a fairly thin argument. Apple market agressively. Unfortunately their products are comparitively expensive and no one buys them when they can get a cheaper option.

    48. Re:Limits of Innovation by R.Caley · · Score: 1
      OS X takes as long to boot and has as much pointless eye candy, and the same brain dead one-thing-at-a-time GUI

      some examples would be nice. OS X rarely needs rebooting.

      I didn't say it had to be rebooted as often, just that it was dog-slow. I've heard that the latest version is faster.

      No Eye Candy is pointless

      I'd rather have the cycles. I'd really rather have the deveopment resources gone into something which makes my life better.

      Bundle that with expose, the ability to effect windows without losing focus of the current window(hold the cmd button down when using the mouse),

      Why should I have to fight to read something different from what I'm writing on? My desk and paper allows me to do that trivially. I thought we were supposed to have had a desktop metaphore for a couple of decades. And what about having to switch focus to another application just to get at some trivial menu related to it? Why all this extra work? Because they're stuck with a GUI which was designed to work around an 8 inch screen and programmers who could't update overlapping windows properly?

      Too many simple things require keyboard and mouse coordination, or going around the houses. Even Windows is less irritating, which is saying something. At least the icons don't bounce at me like derranged, well, paperclips.

      Mind you, the Mac Mini plus a real mouse would make a nice VNC terminal. A bit expensive, but pretty.

      --
      _O_
      .|<
      The named which can be named is not the true named
    49. Re:Limits of Innovation by TheoGB · · Score: 1

      That's a little unfair. For people who care as much about furniture as software. ;-)

    50. Re:Limits of Innovation by HuguesT · · Score: 1

      1- Apple stores in Europe, Asia and Australia carry almost zero games. Maybe the US situation is different, but I don't live there at the moment.

      2a- Major counter-example not out on Mac yet: doom3. Major game that may never come out on Macs: HL2 (!), Major games that *will* never come out on macs: MystII Uru and many many others. One year wait is typical. There are better and worse cases of course.

      2b - Major counter-examples that are *just* coming out on Mac: KOTOR (the original, not the sequel!), Homeworld2, Medal of Honor (how old is that game?), Halo (again, the original), Fallout2 (Isn't that incredible?). All at full price (US$49). For the PC you have been able to find FO2 for $5 for a long time now.

      It seems porting is hard and expensive.

      2c - Extremely Rare Exceptions: MystIV, WoW.

      You've obviously never tried to buy Mac games. Do yourself a favour and look on the US Apple Store. You can now buy the *extention* to BG-II, a game that came out 4-5 years ago at the *full price* of the original game. RTCW is at US$40. The situation is even worse outside of the US.

      Last time I went to a US Apple Store was in 2000, in SF. I wasn't impressed by the selection even then.

      As for console, thanks but I'd like to play on the road with my laptop if possible. I wouldn't like to lug around these things and you can't play on airplanes (loooooong flights to anywhere from Australia).

      I'm happy with playing old games but I don't like the small selection and the prices.

      The super-killer PC you talk about to play nice games are all cheaper than all but the cheapest macs, and I have one around anyway that I use for other tasks, so it's zero extra cost. I only play old, tested, reliable cheap games my PC is way overkill to play. I once bought a new game (Falcon4), never again (bug galore). The games I'm interested in are mostly not available on consoles.

      Finally I don't have a TV set, out of choice. I occasionally watch a DVD on the aforementionned Super Duper PC that cost a few hundred bucks to build months ago.

    51. Re:Limits of Innovation by kristjansson · · Score: 1

      all quite true. however, apple was in no way obligated to even release the x86 version of darwin, much less maintain it. further, i imagine that there was a bit of kernel level reworking involved in the source. As for Star Trek having anything to do with the current release of MacOS, I think I'd have an easier time trying to claim a connection between MS Windows v1.0 design or source and IBM System/360's. ;)

    52. Re:Limits of Innovation by tim256 · · Score: 1

      Apple is a hardware company, but a lot of the hardware in their computers are made by other venders such as a machines CPU, sound card, video card, memory, etc. Beside the iPod there's really not a lot that Apple makes anymore. OS X is by far their best product. Maybe they could have another version for the PC and call it something else. But, i'm not a business man. I think it would definately make things more interesting for us IT folks.

  38. We definetely have a trouble with some companys .. by GNUALMAFUERTE · · Score: 0, Interesting

    For Example, IBM, Google, Apple, and now, Sun (Which is in a similar situation to IBM).

    We would like to be able to love this companys, we are geeks, we love technology, and we tend to try to extend that love to the creators of the technology that we like, but this are busnisses, that are trying to make money. That fact doesn't make them more or less evil, but it shows us that instead of loving or hating them, we should understand that they are part of a market, in which they compete, and that we are their customers. The only card we can play is the decition to be their customer or not, and we should take that decition based on our own ethics, and in the general politics of the company, or on how much we need their products, but _NOT_ on their slashdot karma.

    ALMAFUERTE

    --
    WTF am I doing replying to an AC at 5 A.M on a Friday night?
  39. Re:timothy's gay porn career by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You watch gay porn?

  40. useful by tfoss · · Score: 2, Funny
    http://mirrordot.org/stories/8739fc09d2972ac58410a 3f342a33f43/index.html

    So glad mirrordot is able to mirror the "Problem in Database Connection" page.

    -Ted

    --
    -=-=- Quantum physics - the dreams stuff are made of.
  41. Flops at Apple are predictable-Baby on board. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "God knows that I'm one of those at his feet, weeping and bathing him in frankincense."

    As long as you don't have his baby. We will not say a word.

  42. Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That site got Slashdotted so fast, Mirrordot didn't even have time to grab a mirror.

  43. Article text, links & images intact by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Posted anonymously to avoid whoring karma!!

    --

    Top 10 Apple Flops

    Though Apple computer is known for some of the computing and technology industry's most notable innovations, its not as if the company hasn't also taken its lumps. Thomas Hormby submitted the following editorial contribution to osOpinion/osViews, which supplies us with his top ten list of Apple's (and some of associated partners) most significant flops throughout the company's history.

    [Image] Apple and its compatriots have been highly innovative. These companies have proven that even if their ideas are well implemented, they cannot always promote them correctly. Other times, a good idea is implemented poorly, and despite their best marketing effort, the product fails. I have compiled 10 of the most notable products released by Apple or its comrades that have failed.

    Apple Pippin

    [Image] Introduced under Spindler's rule as CEO, the Pippin should have won Apple a position in the console market, one Apple had yet to penetrate. Apple's goal was to make the Pippin a multimedia machine, capable of reading CD ROMs, surfing the internet and to play games.

    Apple had decided to share the Pippin's source code with developers for a licensing fee. The developers had a lot more flexibility, and would be able to redesign the Pippin's software to make it attractive for any number of markets. However, Apple was able to recruit only 4500 developers willing to pay the licensing fee.

    The operating system of the Pippin was based on the MacOS and with a PowerPC 603 running at 66 MHZ, the Pippin used a similar processor to desktop macs at that time. Being a multimedia machine, the Pippin was capable of producing CD quality sound, and displaying up to thousands of colors. With the powerful Power PC processor, Apple thrashed Nintendo and Sega consoles performance wise, but never won a sizable portion of the market.

    OpenDoc

    [Image] The concept behind OpenDoc is an intuitive one. Many elements of applications are redundant (calculators, multimedia players, spreadsheets). Why not 'cut them up' and use different modules interchangeably. Each file would then make calls on these different modules as needed. With OpenDoc, if a user wished to create a word processor document that includes a spreadsheet, the user would not have to copy it over as a table, or use a gimped up version included with the word processor. Instead, they could call up the ClarisWorks for OpenDoc Spreadsheet module and have a full-blown spreadsheet in the middle of a word processing document.

    OpenDoc development started in 1995 in collaboration with Novell, IBM and Apple. In 1997, Apple integrated OpenDoc into its core strategy, releasing several OpenDoc apps, and including the technology in Mac OS 7.6. At the same time, the technology was being developed for Windows and UNIX. The companies created the Ci Labs which would authorize OpenDoc components that proved to be compatible as Live Objects.

    In accordance to Apple's vision, it became possible with the OpenDoc compatible version of ClarisWorks to create a document that integrated various OpenDoc modules. The example below has an integrated Video Conferencing session with QuickTime, a browser frame from CyberDog and a graph from another OpenDoc module.

    Since 1996, Novell has ceased Windows development of OpenDoc, forcing IBM to take on responsibilities for the platform at the same time they continued development on their AIX (UNIX from IBM). The two versions both evolved and were mature commercial products in 1997. There were problems for OpenDoc, however. At the same time, Microsoft released ann updated version of OLE, and released ActiveX, that closely mimicked the OpenDoc principles. OpenDoc was embraced by major OS developers, but it had

    1. Re:Article text, links & images intact by morcheeba · · Score: 2

      nice choice of italicized letters! (hidden message)

    2. Re:Article text, links & images intact by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you like morcheeba? you'd probably like esthero too.

    3. Re:Article text, links & images intact by morcheeba · · Score: 1

      thanks. I also like gus gus, mandalay, morphine, hooverphonic. And, in a different vein, Cowboy Junkies, Ani Difranco, Beth Orton.

    4. Re:Article text, links & images intact by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      michael who?

    5. Re:Article text, links & images intact by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Thanks for the article text, but damn, you are distrubing to be including a hidden "Kill Michael" message there! (For those that didn't notice, look up all the random italicized bits.)

    6. Re:Article text, links & images intact by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe it was like that in the original article.

    7. Re:Article text, links & images intact by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Everyone, please don't kill Micheal. I liked Thriller.

    8. Re:Article text, links & images intact by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're right - I didn't see any of them, but when I did a view source, it was obvious. Freaky.

    9. Re:Article text, links & images intact by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 1

      Why do you think he got modded up?

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    10. Re:Article text, links & images intact by grouchomarxist · · Score: 1

      This article is full of minor inaccuracies. For example, it claims that "OpenDoc development started in 1995", but in fact it started development within Apple before 1993. I noticed a few other problems.

    11. Re:Article text, links & images intact by Cska+Sofia · · Score: 1
      In 1989, Apple requested Sun to stop marketing the Lisa, and buried the last 2700 computers in a field.

      Now that's a product cancellation nobody can argue with. Imagine digging that lot up in 500 years time!

  44. Question... by physicsphairy · · Score: 4, Funny
    Just how many floating point operations is an Apple flop?

    I'll need to know this information before I can top one, much less ten of them!

    1. Re:Question... by fimbulvetr · · Score: 0, Troll

      Apple doesn't measure performance. They measure beauty and lack of seams. Performance and speed was an afterthought.

    2. Re:Question... by physicsphairy · · Score: 1

      You seem to have answered my question without providing any of the information I was looking for... I don't suppose by chance you're in marketing, are you?

    3. Re:Question... by Game+Genie · · Score: 2, Funny

      No kidding. I thought this was an article about the latest Apple super computer

    4. Re:Question... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      as many as it takes to calculate 1 infinite loop.

  45. Their mouse by MrDoh! · · Score: 1

    Sites down atm (cue Nuke jokes here), but it's gotta be their one button mouse, shorty followed by their excuses that it's all people really need.
    Really, JUST one button?

    --
    Waiting for an amusing sig.
  46. An overlooked flop by overbyj · · Score: 4, Insightful

    was really the whole Performa line of computers. At the time the Performa's were aimed at the home user and overall they were a decent computer. But the flop part was the fact that there were something like 8,000 different versions! (Of course, I am exaggerating, but only by a little bit.)

    I remember going to OfficeDepot and looking at the Performas and they along had like six different models with six different model numbers. Something like 6510, 6511, 6512, 6514, 6515, etc. (I know the actual numbers were different. These are to illustrate my point.) There were just very subtle differences between the models but for whatever reason, it warranted a different number. Basically it was a nightmare trying to remember what was the difference between any two numbers. That whole scheme of trying to provide a range of configurations was a flop. Fortunately, Steve undid that and cut down the product line into four basic models. I, for one, welcomed that.

    --
    No trees were harmed in the composition of this; however, numerous electrons were inconvenienced.
    1. Re:An overlooked flop by all+your+mwbassguy+a · · Score: 1

      supposedly apple did that so circuit city would have the 6315, sears would have the 6312, etc. and each could say they had an "unbeatable" price.

    2. Re:An overlooked flop by linguae · · Score: 1

      To add, the Performa x200 and x300 lines simply sucked. After reading this, you'll know why. I actually own a Performa 6220; it is a decent machine, as long as you are not connected to the Internet....

      To be fair, not all Performas were bad. A Performa, after all, was a rebranded and repackaged Quadra or Power Mac bundled with software designed for home and education use. However, two reasons why the Performa line was bad was the confusing array of numbers (see parent post), duplication (what is really the difference between a Power Mac 6500 and a Performa 6500?) and the Performa x200 and x300 series (which gave the Performa and the PowerPC 603 chip bad names).

    3. Re:An overlooked flop by Anonymous+Writer · · Score: 1

      But the flop part was the fact that there were something like 8,000 different versions!

      I heard that was a marketing strategy (that obviously failed). It was supposedly an attempt to mirror the PC market by flooding consumers with more affordable models, and making it appear that there was a wider selection in the same way there was a wide selection of PC vendors. They were trying to make Macs look like PCs in stores.

    4. Re:An overlooked flop by threephaseboy · · Score: 2, Informative

      The last digit signified the software bundle that was installed on the machine. The first three digits signified the hardware configuration.

      --
      .
    5. Re:An overlooked flop by bedouin · · Score: 1

      The problem with Performas was not just that they were overpriced and underperforming, but that they were released during a time when the average joe was considering a PC purchase. The types of machines Apple released during this period, and the prices they were offered for could have made the difference between now having 5% of the installed base, and perhaps 25% or more. This is their biggest mistake in my opinion.

    6. Re:An overlooked flop by Mr2001 · · Score: 1

      supposedly apple did that so circuit city would have the 6315, sears would have the 6312, etc. and each could say they had an "unbeatable" price.

      You can see the same principle at work today with (for example) eMachines. Some of them even have the store's initials as part of the model number.

      --
      Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.
    7. Re:An overlooked flop by Herbmaster · · Score: 1

      That is really incredible. Mod parent up.

      I remember back in the day using various Performas (as well as a couple Quadra 605s) and wondering what the hell had gotten in to them. They were god-awful slow, and it just didn't make any sense. Even considering their lower clock speed and (usually) small memory configuration, they seemed disproportionally sluggish compared to their contemporaneous Mac models, the Quadra 7/8/9 series and original PowerMacs.

      You mention Performas being repackaged Quadras or, later, PowerMacs. You omit that Apple at the time had 4 silly names for their desktop lines: LC, Performa, Centris, and Quadra. The Centris was the shortest lived of these names and eventually the series made a direct conversion to Quadra models. I tell you, looking back, Apple's naming scheme was unintelligible. I dare you to explain the difference between a LC model and a Performa model. What's worse, many model numbers were used across multiple lines (Apple introduced a Quadra, LC, and Performa 630 all at once), but many weren't. The LC's numbering system goes back to the later MacII days, evident by the subsequent LC II and LC III. what is really the difference between a Power Mac 6500 and a Performa 6500? What's the difference between a Centris 610 and a Quadra 610? (Answer: 5 MHz, mostly) Is a Quadra 700 better than a Quadra 650? Than a Quadra 660? (Answer: No, No.)

      I agree, the 603 chip was unfairly given a bad rep. The Performa line did make one final stand, and I think it did go out on a high note. The Performa 6500 was not a shabby machine. At the time it was probably the most respectable entry level Mac Apple had ever attempted.

      --
      I'm not a smorgasbord.
    8. Re:An overlooked flop by bynary · · Score: 1

      My dad still does most of his work on a Performa 637CD (That's the Money magazine edition). He bought it back in 1994. That's over ten years folks. I remember playing Dark Forces and Myst on that thing. Oh, it shipped with eWorld...

      --
      http://www.bynarystudio.com
  47. x86 is faster and more scalable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    'nuf said

  48. How appropriate by dmccarty · · Score: 1

    Running Postnuke? After a slashdotting you'll wish you had signed up for Prenuke.

    --
    Have fun: Join D.N.A. (National Dyslexics Association)
  49. down-Cavity Computing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "The database would appear to be hosted on a Newton."

    Oh please. Mine's running on a Hostess Ding Dong.

  50. 10 Flops over 50 years by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the original article is /. so I googled and found something similar with Apple making its appearence twice on it (Newton and Lisa)

    http://www.elecdesign.com/Articles/ArticleID/283 9/ 2839.html

  51. boooo by xamomike · · Score: 1

    If your going to /. a link somewhere, make sure its hosted on a static page at least.

    --
    There are 10 types of people in the world; those who can read binary, and those who can't.
  52. Link to other version of article by mgkimsal2 · · Score: 4, Informative
  53. Apple Corps Vs Apple Computer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


    i know its a joke but who knows ?, by the time Apple Corps has finished with them, while the iPod might not be deemed as a flop with the consumers , it could be deemed a very expensive mistake to the shareholders

    1. Re:Apple Corps Vs Apple Computer by aristotle-dude · · Score: 1
      If Apple Corpse goes through with this, they may loose any future revenue they may have enjoyed from music sales. Don't forget that Apple Computers has a lot of influence in the music business and a lot of musicians use macs. The Beatles are has-beens.

      If they do go through with the extortion lawsuit, I'd encourage everyone to stop buying Beatles music and pirate it instead. Or stop listening to it altogether. Those bloody sell-outs symbolize everything that is wrong with the music industry and the legal system.

      They have betrayed everything they claimed to stand for.

      --
      Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
  54. Not quite by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    What they consider flops in terms of iMac stlyling were Flower Power and Blue Dalmation iMacs. For some reason those did not sell well at all.

    I also really liked Tangerine.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:Not quite by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Allow me to suggest that the "Flower Power" iMac sold poorly not because there was anything wrong with "Flower Power", but instead because iMacs were just a fad anyway and changing colors on a low price/performance machine can only work for so long before buyers get wise.

    2. Re:Not quite by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The politically incorrect among us at Apple called the flowered iMacs Bitch Macs.

  55. iPod Shuffle? by richcoder · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Perhaps this is the next blunder?

    1. Re:iPod Shuffle? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Given the preorder numbers I've seen for it I doubt it

    2. Re:iPod Shuffle? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If, by "blunder" you mean "selling so fast they can't keep them in stock" -- then yes, it's another blunder.

  56. Mirror by Goalie_Ca · · Score: 4, Informative

    Macreate.net
    This may be /.'d fast, but it's here as well!

    --

    ----
    Go canucks, habs, and sens!
    1. Re:Mirror by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  57. An Apple a Day by Junior+J.+Junior+III · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    Or more like a half dozen, the way Slashdot has been since they announced the Mini. I have to wonder if they're not getting some ad revenue from Cupertino...

    --
    You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
  58. Heck, the Apple //e... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Apple //e was also discontinued in 1993, a far less advanced model than the GS. The Platinum //e sure was pretty though.

  59. Re:"Apples == expensive" not a stereotype by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Prove it. Don't forget to include the combodrive and firewire ports.

  60. I think the Mac mini is the new Cube by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    Not in terms of (lack of) success, but rather the Mac mini has all of the design features that made the Cube nice - lack of a fan, and a small form factor.

    True it's not as expandible, but it solves the Cube issues in that it is cheap and fairly powerful (apart from the slow HD, which I iamgine you could rectify a bit with a nice 5200RPM model).

    After seeing those results a friend of mine is thinking about a Mac mini over an iMac G5!

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:I think the Mac mini is the new Cube by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If anything that graph shows that the PMac/iMac G5 is less fast than people think, not that the Mini is anyway a powerful computer (by PC standards).

    2. Re:I think the Mac mini is the new Cube by Anonymous+Writer · · Score: 1

      the Mac mini has all of the design features that made the Cube nice - lack of a fan, and a small form factor.

      The Mac mini does have a fan. Look at the part labelled "K" on this page.

  61. #1 Flop of OSViews.com by artemis67 · · Score: 1

    1. Submitted site to Slashdot before upgrading server

  62. 10 flops? by slavemowgli · · Score: 5, Funny

    10 FLOPS? Come on, guys, even my pocket calculator does more than that. :)

    --
    quidquid latine dictum sit altum videtur.
  63. Morbid Curiosity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Lots of people like to dig up dirt on well known celebereties, politicians, companies, etc, so I doubt Apple would be any real exception.

  64. i haven't.... by stames · · Score: 0, Troll

    ...R'd TFA yet, but when I do, if I hear one peep about the one-goddamned-button mouse, I'm going homicidal...

  65. Beware the zealots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    An article like this will definately stir up the (often outspoken) Mac zealots. Good, because it'll show us who has as much blind loyalty to a brand as the so-called Linux/Microsoft zealots to whom they so frequently talk down.

    Yes folks, blind brand loyalty is pathetic no matter who does it. Trying to deny the fact that your precious computer company has made mistakes is like stamping a large gold Apple logo on your forehead and claiming to be the First Prime of Jobs.

  66. "We've had to take the site offline for some main by richcoder · · Score: 1

    "We've had to take the site offline for some maintinence.

    Or just tell the truth that your site can't handle the traffic. How about a static page with the article text?

    -rich

  67. Talk about backwards compatibility by Faust7 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    You can take a program for the original Apple ][, pop it into a 5.25" drive on a GS, and run it without a hitch. A program for a 1977 computer running on a 1993 computer.

    That's the kind of backwards compatibility Microsoft, Sony, etc. can only dream of. ;)

    1. Re:Talk about backwards compatibility by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Speaking of Microsoft, I guess you didn't see that Longhorn demo where they ran VisiCalc (free download, go try it).

      PC hardware is depressingly backwards-compatible (with their fantastic BIOS firmware). Buy a new Mac and it's only the latest and greatest OS X for you. Buy a new PC and still can run DOS 3.3, OS/2 1.3 and Netware 2.2 if you need to.

    2. Re:Talk about backwards compatibility by lostchicken · · Score: 1

      This is actually pretty misleading.

      I will be willing to bet that a lot of users of Longhorn will be on 64-bit computers, but Win64 for x86-64 will NOT support Win16 calls (and I also take that to mean DOS apps, but I could be wrong), so that means that only apps written AFTER '95 (apart from those not-too-common WinNT Win32 apps. Just about everything was Win16 in that era) will run on Longhorn if you have a modern 64-bit chip.

      On the other hand, I can run MacDraw circa 1984 without a hitch on OS X 10.3.7 on my PowerBook G4 (doing it right now...), and I'd bet a cookie it'd run on a 64-bit G5 (I'll test it out on the other side of campus tomorrow). Sure, it's under the classic environment, but it's built into the OS, and it's entirely transparent. There's 20 years of backward compatability.

      --
      -twb
    3. Re:Talk about backwards compatibility by Dun+Malg · · Score: 1
      Win16 calls (and I also take that to mean DOS apps, but I could be wrong

      You are wrong. "Win16 calls" refers to the API for Windows 3.1*, which was not actually an operating system, but rather a window environment running under DOS. Win16 calls will not be present in Longhorn, but DOS apps will still work. It's entirely possible, in fact, that one will be able to run Win 3.1 under Longhorn, and from there run software that uses Win16 calls.

      I have a copy of ADVENTUR.EXE (a port of the good old Collosal Cave adventure) dated 1981 that still works-- that's a couple dozen years there. Really, DOS compatibility will probably never go away.

      * The obvious clue there is that it's called Win16

      --
      If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
    4. Re:Talk about backwards compatibility by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only partially less misleading -- AMD64 has no hardware support for "virtual real mode" when running 64-bit native. This was a debatable HARDWARE design decision which intentionally severs back-compat. PowerPC hasn't removed any of their ISA, but if/when they do, Apple will have little choice but to break back-compat.

      However, Microsoft bought VirtualPC, and it may be bundled with Longhorn. People really do still run Win16 and DOS apps.

      Finally, OS X is still a 32-bit OS and even 10.4 will NOT provide a 64-bit API for GUI apps. When Apple finally gets around to OSX64, then you can start comparing it to Win64 or Linux64.

    5. Re:Talk about backwards compatibility by jalefkowit · · Score: 1
      That's the kind of backwards compatibility Microsoft, Sony, etc. can only dream of. ;)

      Excuse me, but: huh?

      I'm no Microsoft booster but Windows has remarkable backwards compatibility with MS-DOS (for anything except games, which tended to venture into Here There Be Dragons territory on things like memory management).

      Here's an experiment you can try for yourself. Go download VisiCalc, the original spreadsheet program (the copyright holders have made it available for free download) onto your shiny Windows XP machine. Then double click the circa-1981 executable.

      Voila! It runs!

      That's twenty-four years of backwards compatibility, which in the PC era is pretty astounding.

      In fact, if Microsoft can be blamed for anything it's having too much backwards compatibility, which has made Windows the crufty monstrosity it is today. But let's be fair in what we ding them for.

  68. Re:Dundant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    * Apple - Mac: Top 10 Apple Flops
    Posted Jan 31, 2005 - 01:31 AM
    Printer friendly page Print this story Send this story to a friend Email this to a friend
    Apple
    Contributed by: Thomas Hormby :: Open Content

    "Though Apple computer is known for some of the computing and technology industry's most notable innovations, its not as if the company hasn't also taken its lumps. Thomas Hormby submitted the following editorial contribution to osOpinion/osViews, which supplies us with his top ten list of Apple's (and some of associated partners) most significant flops throughout the company's history."
    --

    Apple and its compatriots have been highly innovative. These companies have proven that even if their ideas are well implemented, they cannot always promote them correctly. Other times, a good idea is implemented poorly, and despite their best marketing effort, the product fails. I have compiled 10 of the most notable products released by Apple or its comrades that have failed.
    Apple Pippin

    Introduced under Spindler's rule as CEO, the Pippin should have won Apple a position in the console market, one Apple had yet to penetrate. Apple's goal was to make the Pippin a multimedia machine, capable of reading CD ROMs, surfing the internet and to play games.

    Apple had decided to share the Pippin's source code with developers for a licensing fee. The developers had a lot more flexibility, and would be able to redesign the Pippin's software to make it attractive for any number of markets. However, Apple was able to recruit only 4500 developers willing to pay the licensing fee.

    The operating system of the Pippin was based on the MacOS and with a PowerPC 603 running at 66 MHZ, the Pippin used a similar processor to desktop macs at that time. Being a multimedia machine, the Pippin was capable of producing CD quality sound, and displaying up to thousands of colors. With the powerful Power PC processor, Apple thrashed Nintendo and Sega consoles performance wise, but never won a sizable portion of the market.
    OpenDoc

    The concept behind OpenDoc is an intuitive one. Many elements of applications are redundant (calculators, multimedia players, spreadsheets). Why not 'cut them up' and use different modules interchangeably. Each file would then make calls on these different modules as needed. With OpenDoc, if a user wished to create a word processor document that includes a spreadsheet, the user would not have to copy it over as a table, or use a gimped up version included with the word processor. Instead, they could call up the ClarisWorks for OpenDoc Spreadsheet module and have a full-blown spreadsheet in the middle of a word processing document.

    OpenDoc development started in 1995 in collaboration with Novell, IBM and Apple. In 1997, Apple integrated OpenDoc into its core strategy, releasing several OpenDoc apps, and including the technology in Mac OS 7.6. At the same time, the technology was being developed for Windows and UNIX. The companies created the Ci Labs which would authorize OpenDoc components that proved to be compatible as "Live Objects".

    In accordance to Apple's vision, it became possible with the OpenDoc compatible version of ClarisWorks to create a document that integrated various OpenDoc modules. The example below has an integrated Video Conferencing session with QuickTime, a browser frame from CyberDog and a graph from another OpenDoc module.

    Since 1996, Novell has ceased Windows development of OpenDoc, forcing IBM to take on responsibilities for the platform at the same time they continued development on their AIX (UNIX from IBM). The two versions both evolved and were mature commercial products in 1997. There were problems for OpenDoc, however. At the same time, Microsoft released ann updated version of OLE, and released ActiveX, that closely mimicked the OpenDoc principles. OpenDoc was embraced by major OS developers, but it had failed to attract third party developers. Mac OS 8 was the last release from Apple to incl

  69. 503 Service Temporarily Unavailable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...and it's down. *clap, clap*

  70. Apple ///, no. Apple SOS, yes. by kriegsman · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Actually, the Apple /// was a fairly successful small business computer in the early 80s. Visicalc sold a lot of machines for Apple -- including Apple ///'s.

    Now, Apple SOS (Sophisticated Operating System) for the Apple /// -- that was the problem.

    -Mark, who's having SOS coding flashbacks now, thankyouverymuch

  71. article in full by oscast · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Apple and its compatriots have been highly innovative. These companies have proven that even if their ideas are well implemented, they cannot always promote them correctly. Other times, a good idea is implemented poorly, and despite their best marketing effort, the product fails. I have compiled 10 of the most notable products released by Apple or its comrades that have failed. Apple Pippin

    Introduced under Spindler's rule as CEO, the Pippin should have won Apple a position in the console market, one Apple had yet to penetrate. Apple's goal was to make the Pippin a multimedia machine, capable of reading CD ROMs, surfing the internet and to play games. Apple had decided to share the Pippin's source code with developers for a licensing fee. The developers had a lot more flexibility, and would be able to redesign the Pippin's software to make it attractive for any number of markets. However, Apple was able to recruit only 4500 developers willing to pay the licensing fee.

    The operating system of the Pippin was based on the MacOS and with a PowerPC 603 running at 66 MHZ, the Pippin used a similar processor to desktop macs at that time. Being a multimedia machine, the Pippin was capable of producing CD quality sound, and displaying up to thousands of colors. With the powerful Power PC processor, Apple thrashed Nintendo and Sega consoles performance wise, but never won a sizable portion of the market.

    OpenDoc

    The concept behind OpenDoc is an intuitive one. Many elements of applications are redundant (calculators, multimedia players, spreadsheets). Why not 'cut them up' and use different modules interchangeably. Each file would then make calls on these different modules as needed. With OpenDoc, if a user wished to create a word processor document that includes a spreadsheet, the user would not have to copy it over as a table, or use a gimped up version included with the word processor. Instead, they could call up the ClarisWorks for OpenDoc Spreadsheet module and have a full-blown spreadsheet in the middle of a word processing document. OpenDoc development started in 1995 in collaboration with Novell, IBM and Apple. In 1997, Apple integrated OpenDoc into its core strategy, releasing several OpenDoc apps, and including the technology in Mac OS 7.6. At the same time, the technology was being developed for Windows and UNIX. The companies created the Ci Labs which would authorize OpenDoc components that proved to be compatible as "Live Objects".

    In accordance to Apple's vision, it became possible with the OpenDoc compatible version of ClarisWorks to create a document that integrated various OpenDoc modules. The example below has an integrated Video Conferencing session with QuickTime, a browser frame from CyberDog and a graph from another OpenDoc module.

    Since 1996, Novell has ceased Windows development of OpenDoc, forcing IBM to take on responsibilities for the platform at the same time they continued development on their AIX (UNIX from IBM). The two versions both evolved and were mature commercial products in 1997. There were problems for OpenDoc, however. At the same time, Microsoft released ann updated version of OLE, and released ActiveX, that closely mimicked the OpenDoc principles. OpenDoc was embraced by major OS developers, but it had failed to attract third party developers. Mac OS 8 was the last release from Apple to include OpenDoc, and it was quietly killed at the hands of Gil Amelio.

    Mac TV

    Apple was the first major personal computer manufacturer to release a machine with a bundled TV tuner to the public. The Macintosh TV was Apple's first effort in merging the home theater and personal computer. The machine was also one of the only two black Macs ever made (the second being a special edition 5400 sold only in Europe). The Macintosh TV was first envisioned as a tenth anniversary Mac, but it was eventually cancelled. After the unexpected success of the Color Classic, John Sculley requested that a machine comparable to the Color Classic be made with a CD ROM

  72. What section are we in, man? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Of course he watches gay porn!

    Still, it's better than watching that weird bestiality stuff over in the linux.slashdot.org section.

  73. The most important flop... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I used to work at Apple, circa 1980-84. Sat right next to the people in the research department.

    They told Steve that Apple should go after small business, not corporations. Apple systems -- particularly the Mac -- were well-suited to individual computer users...but corps would be less enthusiastic about their products.

    Steve told them (in his usual screaming manner) that he didn't need no research...and that corporations would line up to buy his machine because it was so insanely great.

    Steve may be a genius. But he was wrong.

    If they'd targeted small businesses, they could've owned the market.

    By going after corporations, they could never be more than a niche player...

  74. no mention of the powerbook 5300? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    a.k.a. the 'Road Apple'- This was the first of the powerPC laptops. But the batteries in this creaking, $5000 beauty would burst into flame while recharging. The press had a field day and the recall was the biggest Apple has ever seen, by far.

    I'd say this was a bigger 'flop' than most of the items listed, especially things like 'MS Word 6' and a few of the wackier iMac colors. It's even worse than the 'hockey puck mouse'.

    My, how quickly they forget...

    1. Re:no mention of the powerbook 5300? by bynary · · Score: 1

      I used a 5300 during my first two years of college without a hitch. I never experienced an exploding battery. The one problem I did have with it was that the trackpad button broke. I fixed that with an extension that added "clickability" to the trackpad. Problem solved. I sold it to a friend for $600 which I then used to pay for part of my new Lime iMac. Last time I saw it, it was being sold to a professor's wife two years later for...$600. I have yet to own a Mac that I had any real problems with.

      --
      http://www.bynarystudio.com
  75. Re:"Apples == expensive" not a stereotype by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Then you should have no problem with the statement than Macs are expensive.

    But it's not quite true. Their desktop offerings are more expensive, but their laptop offerings are not.

  76. Copland, Taligent Pink, Bedrock, OpenDoc,Kalieda! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The most EXPENSIVE technical fiascos of bad enginneering and lost dollars were :

    Copland, Taligent Pink, Bedrock, OpenDoc, Kalieda, QuickDraw GX, CyberDog, QuickDraw 3D , SOM, Powertalk, Dylan, Hypercard, Newton, Rhapsody (on Win NT)

    Kalieda was allegedly only 16 millions dollars of salary wasted, but i disagree.

    EVERY one of these sdk,api,products was programmed by loser academic style coders, and the cool and wide 3rd party mac developers stayed the hell away from these buggy stillborn apple swill.

    i could name another 20, but then that would be partly opinions and then people would cry and calim i am flaming and trolling.

    with the list i cited, its all FACTS

  77. or something... by needacoolnickname · · Score: 1

    How many people buy a computer and think "Oh I gotta get this because it runs on x86 architecture."? If the person is making a large business decision then yes, they should think of these things and what can run on them but not most home users.

    Most people don't go out and buy an OS but buy a computer. They buy it for what they can do with it.

    Most people don't even know they can upgrade their OS from ME to XP or anything else. They just go out and buy a whole new computer, monitor and all because that is the computer they bought.

    1. Re:or something... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most people will walk in to a store and see 75 shelves of PC software, and 2 shelves of Mac software. If OSX ran on x86, there's a much better chance that the PC software could run unported, unemulated on OSX.

      Apple, if it really does have a better interface (so good you only need one mouse button, context menus be damned!), would be dominant.

    2. Re:or something... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If we're talking about Apple's mistakes, picking PowerPC has to be near top of the list.

      Sure they had a brief performance advantage circa 1995-7, but since then the PPC platform has consistantly been behind (and often WAY BEHIND) the x86 market. There was a 18 month period when the thing didn't get faster AT ALL! Even the vaunted G5 is slipping behind by PC workstations in the same price range. And then you have power consumption, a traditional PPC strenght, now getting it's ass fucked sideways by Pentium M.

      Maybe picking Intel was too much for Apple. Even so, they would have been much better off with Alpha than with PPC.

    3. Re:or something... by needacoolnickname · · Score: 1

      But most people walking into the store and seeing those shelves and shelves of software don't see that it runs on x86 hardware but see that it runs on Windows.

      Ported? Emulated? These are really foreign words to those who walk into the store and go shopping for software.

      How many shelves of Linux software do you see at the store? The stores sell software for the computers they sell. Go to the Apple Store and there are shelves and shelves of software that runs on a Mac.

      You bring up the 'better interface'. I say to each his own. I'm not telling you to buy a Mac or they are better. I'm saying that porting the OS to run on x86 isn't going to up their bottom line unless they get manufacturers to install it on the computers they sell.

    4. Re:or something... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      AC meet IBM Blue Gene/L. If you didn't know, Blue Gene uses about 32,000 PPC CPUs and it's currently the fastest super-computer in the world.

    5. Re:or something... by Guy+Harris · · Score: 1
      Most people will walk in to a store and see 75 shelves of PC software, and 2 shelves of Mac software. If OSX ran on x86, there's a much better chance that the PC software could run unported, unemulated on OSX.

      If by "the PC software" you mean "software written for Windows" (and maybe DOS, if there's some DOS software still around), then there's not much chance that it'd run "unported, unemulated" on a hypothetical x86 OS X release, unless by "unemulated" you mean no emulation of the machine instruction set - OS X isn't going to run software that expects a Windows ABI without an emulator for the OS calls.

    6. Re:or something... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tell me how that helps our poor underpowered Mac using friends and I might care.

    7. Re:or something... by idlake · · Score: 1

      How many people buy a computer and think "Oh I gotta get this because it runs on x86 architecture."?

      No, but lots of them say "I gotta get this because it runs lots of software that I want to run", and for that, it matters whether it has an x86 or a PPC.

  78. Re:"Apples == expensive" not a stereotype by iroll · · Score: 1

    -1 Not Informative

    Anybody who is honestly not biased, who prices out Macs and PCs, can get similar performance for similar price; there are always exceptions each way, but in general Apple products equal or exceed the value of their TRUE COUNTERPARTS. Most price comparisons are by people with a vested interest, who try to put up an iMac vs. an Alienware, or a PowerMac G5 against some piece of shit Dell starter kit. Do your own price comparisons using your own "usability" criteria and you will get a reality check.

    --
    Repetition does not transform a lie into the truth. - FDR
  79. About all the negative comments towards post-nuke by Sheepdot · · Score: 1

    I know what you're thinking.

    PHP-Nuke and Post-Nuke really aren't that bad, everyone here is just exaggerating, it's obviously just his provider.

    Yes, there's some truth in that. But even Mirrordot couldn't get a copy of the site before it went down.

    I think that perhaps we may have hit a new stage in the evolution of the "slashdot effect". Servers are now anticipating it and balking in fear of impending doom.

  80. That myth is cracking me up! by michaeldot · · Score: 2, Informative

    For those who don't remember, the Cubes would occasionally develop these "cracks," for lack of a better term. IIRC, owners started to see hairline fissures slowly appear underneath the ploycarbonate surface.

    I don't know whether you're serious or not?! You've used "IIRC" (which you don't) so I actually think you are being serious!

    As a cube owner, I've described what the cracks actually were in a post above.

    I have to say, it's very funny what some people can be made to believe.

    1. Re:That myth is cracking me up! by UserChrisCanter4 · · Score: 1

      No, I was being serious, although I obviously remembered the actual cause incorrectly.

      My point wasn't about the cracks or mismouldings or anything like that. I wouldn't have had a problem with them if I had owned a cube (as it is, I own three macs). My problem was the way Apple handled it. Along with admitting that it was a problem, they threw out this crackpot "it-gives-your-Mac-character" line, which only served to anger people. If they had simply said, "hey, it's a limited problem on a small run of the product, it doesn't affect the functionality, and if it's really bugging you, we'll fix it," then I wouldn't have considered it a blunder. Additionally, I suspect that it was simply one of those things people liked to bitch about, and Apple might have ultimately ended up replacing a few hundred of the "defective" cubes while gaining even more of a reputation as a company that takes care of its customers.

      Thus, my issue's not with the cracks, it's with Apple straying from their usual policy of erring on the side of caution.

    2. Re:That myth is cracking me up! by Queer+Boy · · Score: 1
      As a cube owner, I've described what the cracks actually were

      I have the hairline scratches (or whatever they are) and I also have real cracks around the pins that hold the metal to the plastic on the top by the air vent. They're small but noticeable. I didn't and still don't care. It has nothing to do with the performance or the overall aesthetic.

      As a Cube owner (the day they were announced they were available at CompUSA) I wanted to clarify it was a real issue, one that Apple would rectfy for free if you sent them the case. I seriously doubt HP or Dell would replace a PC case because there was a cosmetic flaw.

      --
      Not since Marie-Antoinette played milkmaid has looking simple and honest been so fake and complicated.
  81. OT Kendall by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Thanks for that lengthy reply in that other discussion re: mini media center. I read it, but didn't have a chance to reply.

    --Or_f

  82. Tangerine dreams by Colonel+Cholling · · Score: 1

    Hey, any computer endorsed by the Cheat can't be all bad.

    --

    I am Sartre of the Borg. Existence is futile.
  83. Re:"Apples == expensive" not a stereotype by Leo+McGarry · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Virginia Tech did.

  84. The non-performa by Cid+Highwind · · Score: 1

    I had one of those steaming heaps! A Performa 630CD (I think), it was one of the last 68040 machines Apple made. The box claimed it was "PowerPC Upgrade Ready!" in 3-inch-tall red letters, but the PPC upgrade card never made it to market. It could only run the abominable System 7.5.x, and had possibly the world's slowest SCSI chip. Backing up files to an external zip drive required a Zen master's patience.

    Some magazine (Macworld, maybe?) published a list of the 10 worst Macs ever made, and the 68k-based Performa line was near the top.

    --
    0 1 - just my two bits
    1. Re:The non-performa by SmittyTheBold · · Score: 1

      The PPC upgrade did make it to market, but wasn't reasonably priced.

      See here for reference.

      In addition, these machines could run everything up through OS 9. My parents still have a Performa 636CD (same as yours, different software bundle) running Mac OS 8.1 at home. (It would run OS 9, but that started to get rather slow on non-PPC Macs.)

      --
      ± 29 dB
    2. Re:The non-performa by Mr2001 · · Score: 1

      Oh god, my mom had a Performa 630CD, and thanks to that thing, I've never been able to get over the belief that pre-OS-X Macs are unstable piles of crap. It would lock up hard at least twice a day when I was using it, and the power button was hidden all the way in back.

      --
      Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.
    3. Re:The non-performa by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Rather slow as in 'not working at all'

      8.1 was the last version that ran on 68k

  85. Blunder? by game+kid · · Score: 1

    I think it's hot actually; I'd buy it. Now eating it and thinking that it's Trident...that's a blunder.

    --
    You can hold down the "B" button for continuous firing.
  86. i'd buy a mac mini if only... by bani · · Score: 1

    ...it didn't have such unbelievably crappy video.

    now i'm not expecting apple to put a geforce 6800 or radeon x800 in, but come on -- a 32mb radeon 9200??? .

    1. Re:i'd buy a mac mini if only... by 10Ghz · · Score: 1

      Comparable machines of that class usually have intergrated vid-card that use the system-RAM. Compared to those, the vid-card on the Mini is a real powerhouse.

      --
      Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.
    2. Re:i'd buy a mac mini if only... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and here i thought intel had the lead when it came to shitty integrated video. i never expected apple to pick up the torch and run with it. a dubious honor to say the least.

  87. why in god's name by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    is every article on /. for the past 2 weeks about either Apple, Google or some open source bullshit no one but fat guys in their moms basements care about?

    I hate you, I hate your country and I hate your face.

  88. Re:Apple ///, no. Apple SOS, yes. by Yakko · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I'd personally like to find a list of SOS system calls so I can compare them to the ProDOS MLI calls I know and love. Too bad the web kinda fails at letting me have this info. Maybe it really doesn't exist!

    Anyway, if SOS is anything like ProDOS from an assembly language point, I can't possibly see it being all -that- bad. After experiencing the hell that was programming to the File Manager for DOS 3.3, ProDOS (and perhaps SOS, since ProDOS was based on SOS) is a dream.

    From what little I've used of the Apple III (on the Sara emulator), it seems fairly impressive. No way I'd be able to hack it like I can any Apple II series, though...

    --

    --
    Me spell chucker work grate. Need grandma chicken.
  89. My Top...err, Bottom Ten List. by ktakki · · Score: 5, Interesting
    The osviews.com site is a smoking hole in the ground, so I have no idea what Thomas Hormby's list looks like. But I have my own list. It's been twenty years since I bought my first Mac (512K), and I'm probably going to order a Mac Mini this week; in between I've owned over a dozen different models. I love Apple, but I'd be the first to admit that they haven't been without problems over the years. So, here's my list of fuckups that came out of 1 Infinte Loop, Cupertino, CA:

    1. 128K in the original Mac - Even in a world where an operating system, a couple of applications, and all of your documents could fit on a 400K floppy, 128KB of RAM was still not enough. Fortunately, the Mac shipped with 512KB less than a year after its introduction.
    2. Service problems in the early '90s - Quality problems, particularly with LaserWriters, were endemic for a while, and Apple's support during this period was less than stellar. It took years before Apple even began to shake off its reputation for poor customer service.
    3. LCII - I didn't really want to single out one model, but the LCII was the only Mac I absolutely hated. It barely had enough power to run the Finder.
    4. System 7.6 - A System that stayed around long past its sell-by date. All the dithering about Copeland as a potential replacement didn't help things much, and its replacement (System 8) was little more than a stop-gap measure (like Windows ME).
    5. Holding on to ADB/NuBus too long - I never really saw what advantage ADB had over the PS/2 mouse/keyboard interface other than vendor lock-in (I think only one other peripheral - a modem - used this interface). NuBus did have advantages over ISA, but the move to PCI could have happened a year or two earlier.
    6. Some outrageous prices during the '90s - This was where the Mac got its "overpriced" reputation. I recall that the list price for a Quadra 950 was close to $10,000. It wasn't always like this: I bought my first Mac 512K because it was nearly $1,000 less than the equivalent PC/XT clone (and the peripheral I needed, a MIDI interface, was less than $100, less than half what an MPU-401 for a PC cost).
    7. Begun the Clone Wars Have. - Now you see 'em, now you don't. The conventional wisdom was that Apple wanted the clonemakers to stake out the low end of the market, leaving the high-margin high end market to Apple. But Radius and Power Computing had other ideas.
    8. John Scully - 'nuff said.
    9. Mutant Macs (Cube, 20th Anniversary Mac, Color Classic, Portable) - Not everything that emerges from 1 Infinite Loop is to die for. Well, some are to die for (Cube) but stink up the marketplace. I think every manufacturer is allowed to make an Edsel now and again.
    10. Copeland - All that work for what?


    What, you were expecting one button mouse to be here?

    k.
    --
    "In spite of everything, I still believe that people are really good at heart." - Anne Frank
    1. Re:My Top...err, Bottom Ten List. by NutscrapeSucks · · Score: 1

      If you thought the LCII was bad, try the original LC :)

      The LCII thing does highlight Apple's 1990 strategy of shipping severely crippled computers to the low-end and consumer markets. These people got a terrible user experience with slow/incompatible/useless machines that probably drove them away from Apple forever. A few more examples:

      + When Quadras were shipping, Apple was selling Mac Pluses/Classics to students. This was during the time VGA was becoming common on IBM PCs.

      + Right before the PowerPC machines shipped, my boss managed to buy a 030 Performa for his kids -- a machine that was 2 years obsolete on arrival.

      + The 6300/6400 Macs which not only had severely crippled motherboards, were also defective and had to be recalled.

      + eMac/Mac Mini (**ducks**)

      --
      Whenever I hear the word 'Innovation', I reach for my pistol.
    2. Re:My Top...err, Bottom Ten List. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I recall that the list price for a Quadra 950 was close to $10,000

      In Apple's defense, the 950 was originally designed as a server or high-end workstation.

      The thing had 16 (!) RAM slots and five NuBus slots. Everything else was pretty top-of-the-line.

      It was expensive, but was massively over-built, as well.

    3. Re:My Top...err, Bottom Ten List. by NutscrapeSucks · · Score: 1

      To put things in context, a highend 486-based IBM PS/2 system cost around $8000 at the time. The Quadra 950 was not that overpriced.

      --
      Whenever I hear the word 'Innovation', I reach for my pistol.
    4. Re:My Top...err, Bottom Ten List. by Macgrrl · · Score: 1

      Compared to the LC, I didn't think the LC II was too bad, my parents still have my old one, it ran pretty sweetly under Sys 7.1 when properly tweaked.

      While on the topic of Systems, 7.6 was fine (in fact I think I still have a PM 8100 kicking around on 7.6.1) if you comparted it to the adbomination which was 7.5. Much of Apples poor service reputation actually cam from the combination of 7.5 which was rushed out to 'compete' with Windows '95, and the quality issues of the Performa/PM 52xx/62xx family devices and the PB190/5300 devices.

      --
      Sara
      Designer, Gamer, Macgrrl in an XP World
    5. Re:My Top...err, Bottom Ten List. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I never really saw what advantage ADB had over the PS/2 mouse/keyboard Dude! What are you talking about? ADB was daisy-chainable, hot-pluggable, and provided power just like USB, only years earlier! It led the way for peripheral interfaces of today. And you could get third party mice, keyboards, joysticks, and whatnot that could interface with ADB. Hell, I had a Logitech 3-button mouse that was ADB in 1995.

    6. Re:My Top...err, Bottom Ten List. by ktakki · · Score: 1

      To put things in context, a highend 486-based IBM PS/2 system cost around $8000 at the time.

      Um, no.

      The Quadra 950 was produced from 1992 to 1995. Street price was around $6,000 (which is roughly what my old company paid for its 950 in 1993). I bought that 950 for $250 when the company was acquired in 1999 (and the grandparent poster is correct -- it's a big, overbuilt beast of a machine).

      In 1994, a Pentium 60 (32MB RAM, 1GB HD, 2MB VRAM, 17" monitor, SB16 audio, 10Base-T) was $4,200. An similarly equipped 486-DX2/66 was $3,500. A year later, you could substitute a 100 MHz Pentium for the 486 and pay the same $3,500.

      Trust me on this. I still have the credit card receipts.

      k.
      --
      "In spite of everything, I still believe that people are really good at heart." - Anne Frank
    7. Re:My Top...err, Bottom Ten List. by gmhowell · · Score: 1

      What, you were expecting one button mouse to be here?

      No, because you obviously drink the Kool-Aid.

      The march from 6.0.0 to 6.0.7 was much, much more painful than dealing with 7.5.

      I had a MacRecorder (back in the days before builtin sound input) that used the ADB interface. I remember seeing some other odds and ends. It helps if you look at ADB more like USB than PS2.

      That said, you, like the original authors missed the Apple ///. Major abomination, and could have pulled the whole mess down, coming right at the same time as Lisa.

      --
      Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
    8. Re:My Top...err, Bottom Ten List. by Queer+Boy · · Score: 2, Informative
      I never really saw what advantage ADB had over the PS/2 mouse/keyboard interface

      ADB devices can daisy-chain up to 20 devices, though usually after 6 power can become an issue. ADB actually provides a usable amount of power, like USB does only not as much. It's usable for input devices other than keyboards and mice (such as graphic tablets) because it communicates faster than PS/2.

      This page has more information on ADB and its capabilities.

      --
      Not since Marie-Antoinette played milkmaid has looking simple and honest been so fake and complicated.
    9. Re:My Top...err, Bottom Ten List. by ktakki · · Score: 1

      No, because you obviously drink the Kool-Aid.

      Probably true, but right now I'm typing this on a Toshiba laptop running XP. And I'm drinking scotch.

      The march from 6.0.0 to 6.0.7 was much, much more painful than dealing with 7.5.

      Yeah, I remember that. But my point wasn't that 7.x was bad, it was that 7.x was around too long. I think that all of the development effort wasted on Copland could have made 8.x better than it was.

      I had a MacRecorder (back in the days before builtin sound input) that used the ADB interface. I remember seeing some other odds and ends. It helps if you look at ADB more like USB than PS2.

      Point taken, but I think that 90% of Mac users at the time could have benefitted more from cheaper mice and keyboards (or the choice of using cheap IBM-compatible peripherals). I have a box full of third-party ADB mice and keyboards. They're cheap, but they could have been cheaper.

      As for non-mouse/keyboard ADB peripherals, in all my years using Macs, only once did I have an occasion where I needed to use a non-mouse/keyboard ADB peripheral (running a three-line BBS off of a Mac Classic II in 1992, with modems attached to the printer and modem ports, along with an ADB modem).

      That said, you, like the original authors missed the Apple ///. Major abomination, and could have pulled the whole mess down, coming right at the same time as Lisa.

      I'm willing to give Apple a bye on the Apple /// and Lisa for one reason: the market for personal computing was in its infancy, and it's hard to find a price and feature set that the market could bear when there's really not much of a market to speak of (other than the Apple //).

      k.
      --
      "In spite of everything, I still believe that people are really good at heart." - Anne Frank
    10. Re:My Top...err, Bottom Ten List. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have a recollection of seeing a company called Farallon selling the MacRecorder in some user group's newsletter and drooling over it for days. Sound input! There was a time when it was cool.

      Btw, I believe some of the IP in FireWire is based on the ADB.

    11. Re:My Top...err, Bottom Ten List. by NutscrapeSucks · · Score: 1

      Well, you're right about 1994, but in 1992 even a whitebox i486 machine ran over $5K, and namebrand was considerably more.

      By 1994-5, the 950 was primarily sold as server or an Avid machine, and Apple was selling cheaper Centris/Quadra 040 desktop models.

      (I remember the first Q950 I got to use in about 1994. It was already obsolete, but it had 100MB of RAM! Even the PC Servers topped out at 16 or 32MB in those days.)

      --
      Whenever I hear the word 'Innovation', I reach for my pistol.
    12. Re:My Top...err, Bottom Ten List. by jandrese · · Score: 1

      Actually, most benchmarks put the LCII as slightly slower than the LC. Good thing for apple the LCIII was a pretty nice machine.

      --

      I read the internet for the articles.
    13. Re:My Top...err, Bottom Ten List. by NutscrapeSucks · · Score: 1

      Slightly slower but at least compatible with software like Netscape. I use to call it the "Loser Computer" :)

      --
      Whenever I hear the word 'Innovation', I reach for my pistol.
    14. Re:My Top...err, Bottom Ten List. by snuf23 · · Score: 1
      "128K in the original Mac - Even in a world where an operating system, a couple of applications, and all of your documents could fit on a 400K floppy, 128KB of RAM was still not enough. Fortunately, the Mac shipped with 512KB less than a year after its introduction."


      The original Amiga 1000 had a similar problem with RAM. It was released with 256k which was barely enough to boot the OS. The upgrade module to 512k became a permanent fixture shortly after launch. RAM was really expensive at the time.


      The keep it inexpensive attitude that drove initial Mac development and lead to the initial units having only 128k RAM is also part of the reason why MacOS did not have things like preemptive multitasking - even though it was included in the Lisa OS.

      I always thought it was pretty bizarre that Apple funded both the Mac and Lisa at around the same time, while selling the ][ series and also releasing the ][GS (which it should be noted was somewhat castrated to prevent it from stepping on the Mac's shoes).

      --
      Sometimes my arms bend back.
    15. Re:My Top...err, Bottom Ten List. by SmittyTheBold · · Score: 1

      It was *NOT* officially hot-pluggable. It would likely work, but the connector was not engineered to be used this way and it was quite possible to fry either your device or the ADB controller if you got unlucky.

      --
      ± 29 dB
    16. Re:My Top...err, Bottom Ten List. by diamondsw · · Score: 1
      Unfortunately, you're wrong on System 7.6.

      As someone who lived through 7.5, 7.5.1, 7.5.2, 7.5.3, and 7.5.5 (and the huge warning online "DON'T TOUCH 7.5.4!!!") and the myriad patches, updates, and fragmented installers, System 7.6 was actually the first in a revived OS strategy after Gil Amelio took the helm. The several years before that, there had been no innovation or even serious development of the Mac OS. When Gil took over, I recall a report stating there were six developers working on the entire Mac OS. Everyone else had been moved over to the Copland project.

      So let's see, what did we get between 7.1 (1992?) and 7.5.5 (1996)?
      - PowerTalk
      - QuickDraw GX
      - Speech-to-Text (which was so great, we're all using it today!)
      - OpenDoc
      - LOTS of bugs and bugfixes
      Wow, that was all very successful...

      Mac OS 7.6 was the beginning of cleaning up all of this mess. First and foremost, it was the beginning of a real OS strategy for the Mac OS; something that had been absent since the System 7 development:
      1. System 7.6: Harmony - late 1996
      2. Mac OS 8: Tempo - mid-1997
      3. Mac OS 8.5: Allegro - mid-1998
      4. Mac OS 9: Sonata - mid-1999

      System 7.6 cleaned up the nine different installers you had to run to get the various OS pieces installed (one for the OS, one for extras, one for desktop printing, etc). Mac OS 8 and it's classic descendents were based around the idea of getting on a regular OS shipping schedule (once a year) and salvaging all of the Copland technology possible. For a few years there, classic Mac OS saw huge leaps in functionality and performance as more Copland ideas were rehashed (and frequently recoded from scratch) to get it into the Mac OS. Everything from the multithreaded Finder, platinum appearance, Sherlock, multiple users; all of this was destined to be in Copland.

      So while I agree with many on your list, 7.6 was a godsend, not a flop. Everything between 7.1.2 and 7.5.5 was a flop.
      --
      I don't know what kind of crack I was on, but I suspect it was decaf.
    17. Re:My Top...err, Bottom Ten List. by Myrmi · · Score: 1

      The LCII thing does highlight Apple's 1990 strategy of shipping severely crippled computers to the low-end and consumer markets. These people got a terrible user experience with slow/incompatible/useless machines that probably drove them away from Apple forever. The LCII is the only Mac I've ever owned.

      --
      "I think everyone is an agnostic but just doesn't know" - Frazz
    18. Re:My Top...err, Bottom Ten List. by Arru · · Score: 1

      I'm sure you never saw the advantage of ADB over PS/2...underrating is a common problem with Apple technologies.

      However widespread != necessarily better, let's see...
      ADB was chainable for one, you could use either port for keyboard and mouse, or connect the mouse thru keyboard.
      More importantly it had a flexible data transfer standard including peripheral ID allowing gamepads, barcode wands, digitizers and whatnot to connect in the same manner.
      So, basically its an underpowered precursor to USB which unfortunately took another ten years to become standard. It was also licenseable though only Sun took it on.

      But most importantly: ADB was designed by The Woz! ;)

      Now, I agree on the other points...Apple seems to do almost as much wrong as they do right, and it's just natural to care less about misses than hits right?!

      --
      There's no 'on' position on the Slacker switch!
  90. The author's "mirror" by new500 · · Score: 1

    if i am not mistaken, just for those who want pictures. Bit slow now, so apologies if in any way redundant.

    http://www.mlagazine.com/modules.php?op=modload& na me=News&file=article&sid=137&mode=thread&order=0&t hold=0&POSTNUKESID=7e761ab32b7b67210609bebf6a754b6 b

    or just go to http://www.mlagazine.com/ and click the obvious.

    1. Re:The author's "mirror" by sycotic · · Score: 1

      this guy is a genius, mod parent up for sure!

      --
      -- If I were a fish, I'd be wet
  91. Wal Mart by denisonbigred · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    It would seem as if that monolithic retailing juggernaut, Wal Mart, has decided to get on the iPod Shuffle gravy train. Somehow I thinnk it will sell just fine, even without a scree or a scroll wheel.

    --

    "There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals."
  92. Re:"Apples == expensive" not a stereotype by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Virginia Tech was quite well subsidized in their endevor, too.

    Let's compare it to the heavily subsidized NASA computer (With essentially free Itaniums) and, oh, it's again not competitive..

  93. eMate? by FuryG3 · · Score: 1

    No mention of the eMate, which was Apple's attempt at giving every kid in school a personal computer...

  94. Re:"Apples == expensive" not a stereotype by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The problem is that Apple does not make a "true counterpart" to a mainstream desktop PC.

    Apple only competes at the edges of the PC market, not the center, so if you are one of those middle-of-the-road users, Apple simply does not have an affordable product in your category.

  95. PDP line? by snStarter · · Score: 1

    What?

    The PDP-11 is an architectural parent of the 68000 in many ways but geesh. At least TRY.

    1. Re:PDP line? by trb · · Score: 3, Informative
      Yep, the biz about the 68k being used in the "PDP line" of computers a decade before 1983 is clueless. The 68000 came out around 1980. The PDP line wasn't a homogeneous thing anyway, there were PDP-10 mainframes, PDP-11 minis, and PDP-8 smaller/cheaper minis, and they were certainly not based on microprocessors in the '70's. I guess the LSI-11 (around 1975) was DEC's first single-board computer, but it didn't have a single chip CPU.

      PDP-10 rules!

  96. Re:Apple ///, no. Apple SOS, yes. by ScrewMaster · · Score: 4, Informative

    Actually, the Apple /// was a fairly unsuccessful small business computer system. Remarkably so, although by rights it should have been a runaway success as it addressed all the business-related issues that had been plaguing the Apple ][ series from the beginning. Improved keyboard, cool enclosure, decent display, faster CPU .. pretty slick actually. Honestly, the Apple /// should have eclipsed the IBM PC ... it was there first, had the applications, an actual Business BASIC and backwards compatibility with the older Apple ][ software. What killed it was the initial (and well-deserved) bad rap it got for being unreliable (as well as pricey.) At the time (1980) I was working as a service tech for a local computer store, and the early units I serviced were flaky as hell. Hardly suitable for a home machine much less a business system. Furthermore, initial production runs had a defective real-time clock (great idea, Apple was again ahead of its time) chip. It wasn't until the IBM AT came out that IBM had a built-in hardware RTC. Anyway, Apple did eventually fix the problems with the Apple ///+, but by then it was too late ... it was considered a flop. A few months later the original IBM PC was released (I was sent to IBM sales/service school in Boca Raton the week before the official unveiling) and that sounded the death knell for the Apple ///.

    But, yeah. SOS was kinda weird.

    --
    The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
  97. Re:"Apples == expensive" not a stereotype by heinousjay · · Score: 1

    OK. Here is my criteria

    1. Runs Half-Life 2

    that's it. How much do I have to spend on a Mac for this one?

    Smile, I'm kidding. I like the damn things.

    --
    Slashdot - where whining about luck is the new way to make the world you want.
  98. II GS by meehawl · · Score: 3, Insightful

    don't even get me started on the Apple //c.

    Don't forget the II GS. That was a killer machine with sound processing to die for. When it was released it made the available Macs look a bit weak (I think all there was available was the 128/512K models, the Mac Plus, and the Lisa/MacXL). All monochrome, very dull, totally unexpandable. Very pricey!

    People who say that Apple's rot began when Jobs was fired miss the point. Jobs had managed to convince the execs (both regulars and the people who replaced him) that the II line was dead as a dodo and they should focus on the Mac. So Apple did, basically letting their mindshare evaporate within the personal and education markets. Apple had an extremely strong position but managed the transition to Mac very badly, or in fact failed to manage it at all. The II died from neglect.

    One reason lots of other companies that emerged as PC makers in the 80s went on to massively outgrow Apple (think, Compaq...) is that they managed their transition from the 8/16 bit IBM PC through lots of architecture and CPU generations without suddenly dropping support for their existing customer base or alientating them completely. That kind of demonstrated lack of commitment to preserve existing relationships is why so many companies and purchasers found and find it hard to trust Apple, or to believe that its direction or strategy will endure past a few quarters.

    Apple has always had problems as a company splitting its focus between different product lines. Witness the prolonged dullness and fading away of the Mac line the past few years as the iPod has obsessed the one-track-mind of Jobs.

    The best thing for Apple the *computer* company right now might be to spin off or float iPod as a separate division, much as 3Com spun off Palm. use the massive cash raised to do something exciting for the computer line like, I don't know, buy Sun or something! Apple would then be selling both low-end, mid-range, and high-end Unix products!

    Or given undercurrent of US regulatory resistance to Lenovo's purchase of IBM's PC business, why not buy that? An Apple-IBM PC combination would easily pass regulatory hurdles, and uniting two premium brands might work quite well. And of course, the ironic denoument would be priceless.

    --

    Da Blog
    1. Re:II GS by NutscrapeSucks · · Score: 1

      Actually, the IIGS was a total mistake -- Apple wouldn't sell a cheap color Mac, so instead they invested tons of development into the GS to make it sorta Mac-Like. (Finder, Hypercard, AppleTalk).

      Problem was when they dropped it, a whole bunch of Apple customers got marooned. It would have been much smarter to get those schoolkids on the Macintosh platform from the very beginning.

      --
      Whenever I hear the word 'Innovation', I reach for my pistol.
    2. Re:II GS by Wesley+Felter · · Score: 1

      I think a cheap color Mac -- in 1987 -- would have simply been too expensive for the home/education market even if Apple sold it at cost.

      But Apple could have had a migration path from the Apple ][ to the Mac; if only they had shipped the Apple ][ PDS card years earlier...

    3. Re:II GS by Jonathan · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Problem was when they dropped it, a whole bunch of Apple customers got marooned. It would have been much smarter to get those schoolkids on the Macintosh platform from the very beginning.

      Without a time machine that would have been impossible. The successful days of Apple in education were pre-Mac. They basically ruled the education market in the early to mid 1980's. Logically, if they had wanted to keep the market, they should have maintained the ][ series rather than launching an incompatible computer. There's no real reason why we couldn't have 3Ghz 32-bit descendants of the 6502 today.

    4. Re:II GS by NutscrapeSucks · · Score: 1

      Why? Did the 68000 cost that much more than the IIGS's chip? IIRC, the GS wasn't really price competitive with even Amigas/Ataris either. Also, the idea of "at cost" is sorta silly because Apple routinely cleared 60-70% margins on systems in those days.

      --
      Whenever I hear the word 'Innovation', I reach for my pistol.
    5. Re:II GS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I used to work at Apple, circa 1980-84. Sat right next to the people in the research department.

      They told Steve that Apple should go after small business, not corporations. Apple systems -- particularly the Mac -- were well-suited to individual computer users...but corps would be less enthusiastic about their products.

      Steve told them (in his usual screaming manner) that he didn't need no research...and that corporations would line up to buy his machine because it was so insanely great. Hilary Swank's character, injured in a fight and rendered paraplegic, requests and receives euthanasia from Frankie.

      Steve may be a genius, but he was wrong. If they'd targeted small businesses, they could've owned the market. By going after corporations, they could never be more than a niche player...

    6. Re:II GS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, but what does Hillary Swank have to do with this?

    7. Re:II GS by FuzzyBad-Mofo · · Score: 1

      It was a new market. Commodore did the same thing, killing their older line (the PET, VIC, C64, etc. which were all compatible to some extent) in favor of the Amiga. Unfortunately, this approach failed utterly for them. At least Apple is still around.

    8. Re:II GS by Dr.+Sigmund+Freud · · Score: 1
      One reason lots of other companies that emerged as PC makers in the 80s went on to massively outgrow Apple (think, Compaq...) is that they managed their transition from the 8/16 bit IBM PC through lots of architecture and CPU generations without suddenly dropping support for their existing customer base or alientating them completely.
      That's one reason...but not the most significant one (or three). In fact, if you think about it, Apple's transition from 680x0 to PPC was very smooth (fat-binaries any one?)

      Marketing. Compaq (and the rest of the PC crowd) grew because - MS advertised Windows, Intel advertised their "Intel Inside", and Compaq (or Dell, Gateway et al) advertised their PC. Meanwhile Apple hardly advertised Macs, or the OS, and no one had even heard of the Moto 680x0. You'd probably see 1 Apple ad for every 30 Wintel ads.

      Scully and Amellio forgot that Apple was an innovation company, and lost its focus of building great software to go with a good hardware. Instead Apple was just producing ho...hum hardware (centras/performas/quadras and the rest of the junky lineup), and was stuck on OS 7 for, what, 6 years?

      The decision not to license their OS (whether good or bad) cost them a lot of market share.

      The best thing for Apple the *computer* company right now might be to spin off or float iPod as a separate division, much as 3Com spun off Palm. use the massive cash raised to do something exciting for the computer line like, I don't know, buy Sun or something! Apple would then be selling both low-end, mid-range, and high-end Unix products!
      I would disagree. Computers have become a commodity item, and the market has changed. And it will change even more drastically in the coming years. What used to be just a geek toy is now found in practically every home. The distinction between a PC and home gadgets is blurring (almost every appliance now has an "embedded processor"). These will be used to control just about every aspect of our home in the near-to-mid future (if they are not already!)

      Apple made its foray into music with iPod. As the recent discission about the Cringely articles would suggest, Apple is poised to make some big strides into the entertainment market. (Check out this video from the 2004 WWDC for some of the mind-bending stuff we'll see in Tiger that could affect the way we think of home entertainment for example. Do you think any of these advances in software would have happened at Apple if they were not interested in the photo/audio/video market?) Casting off the iPod at this stage of the game would be a mistake.

      To continue to keep the personal computer market separate from the rest of the revolution in the home entertainment/automation/control would, IMHO, be a mistake, because that's where the "personal computer" is headed. Why do you think MS is putting so many of its resources into their brand of the "Home Media Center?"

      Sure, there will always be a market for fast computers for specialized applications in engineering and science (heck, I am a primary client in one of those markets), but that's not where Apple needs to focus exclusively to grow and sell their brand of kool-aid! There is nothing wrong with a two-prong approach as long as both groups keep track of the big picture, and get an equal share of the wealth from Apple resources.

    9. Re:II GS by PurpleFloyd · · Score: 1
      While you make some interesting points, there are a couple of impressions your post leaves that could be clarified.

      First, it's not true that Apple has always bungled major hardware transitions. I'm thinking in particular of the 68k -> PowerPC architecture transition; Apple managed to move its entire customer base from one processor architecture to another without much hassle. When you consider the dismal results Intel has seen trying to move workstations and servers to Itanium, that's no small accomplishment. While the situations are certainly somewhat different, Apple still managed to make a massive shift in a manner almost completely transparent to the end user.

      Second, Apple certainly hasn't focused on iPod to the degree you claim. Apple have been pushing it hard lately; that's because they've found a profitable niche and are exploiting it. What they haven't done is lost focus on the Mac; in fact, there's a new Mac you may have heard of that's selling quite well. In fact, Apple seem to be using products like the iPod and iTunes as a "wedge" to get consumers to switch to the Mac - after all, if you use iTunes, the fact that you won't have to worry about your music when switching to a Mac removes one barrier . If enough of those barriers go down and there's no large difficulties in moving to the Mac, consumers may well flee Windows in droves. In fact, I wouldn't be too suprised to see most of Apple's iLife suite get PC ports soon.

      Apple has made some colossal blunders, but their moves haven't been all bad. In fact, I would say that they're rapidly moving to where they were when the Mac first came out - the only purveyors of a truly user-friendly computer. Let's just hope they don't screw up again.

      --

      That's it. I'm no longer part of Team Sanity.
    10. Re:II GS by NutscrapeSucks · · Score: 2

      Well, that's a bigger issue. Ideally (I suppose), the Macintosh wouldn't have been such a Clean Break, and would have built on the Apple II's installed base (sorta like how Windows displaced DOS).

      But realistically, by the time the Apple IIGS came out, everyone knew that Mac was the future, and there was no migration route from the ][. The GS couldn't compete with the Amiga or the Mac -- it was Edu-Ghetto only. Given that, making the IIGS into a "Fake Mac" (and it was a better Fake Mac than most of the compeititon) was a big mistake.

      Apple had 50%+ of the education market even in the late 90s tho.

      --
      Whenever I hear the word 'Innovation', I reach for my pistol.
    11. Re:II GS by NutscrapeSucks · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The first job I had out of school, the company was 30% Mac, but had stopped purchasing them.

      The second job I had was 75% Mac. The few PCs even had LocalTalk cards. They'd also stopped buying them. Reasons: Incompatibile networking, ridiclous prices, no RAD tools like VB, crappy delivery schedules, poor service, etc etc etc.

      These were both large "enterprise" corps (admittedly in Apple's back yard in the Bay Area). But to say that Apple had no chance in the large business market is ridiclous. They were in that market, they just couldn't respond properly to customer demand.

      --
      Whenever I hear the word 'Innovation', I reach for my pistol.
    12. Re:II GS by lewp · · Score: 1

      I think a cheap color Mac... would have been cheap.

      --
      Game... blouses.
    13. Re:II GS by buttersnout · · Score: 0

      The second half of this response seems to have some errors. I'd disagree, first of all, that the mac line is fading. Recently we've seen the mini and before that the imac g5 preceded by the the g5 towers. And of course tiger has been under development looking great. Second the ipod part of apple has been made a second division. Apparently everything coming up was ipod this and that so they started a new division. They did this on may 19. Here are some links: http://www.macsurfer.com/archive/2004-05-19.html According to rumors this division is working on other projects such as a breakout box code named meteor. If you look at the anouncements regarding macs I think if anything the mac his been evolving faster.

    14. Re:II GS by Skidge · · Score: 1

      I remember the IIGS. I was in elementary school and all we had had up to that point was the IIe. One classroom got a IIGS. We were all (well, the budding geeks among us) like "Whoa! Look at those totally awesome graphics! Man, there are tons of colors!" I don't really remember using it, since it was in some other class, but the demo program they showed on there was pretty cool to us 9 year olds.

    15. Re:II GS by iamacat · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Research people were just short-sighted. Obviously, Apple's existing products were not suitable for corporation, but nobody can say that they couldn't possibly develop any new product that would take off. And at that time, if you wanted to do the coolest stuff, you had to do it on expensive workstations first and then trickle down to consumer market as hardware became cheaper.

      After Steve Jobs left Apple, he started NeXT which was obviously oriented towards both big and small business. In the meantime Apple stagnated and didn't revive until he came back and ported NeXTStep to Mac hardware.

      If he wasn't kicked out from Apple, NeXT would no doubt have Mac application compatibility. Then Apple would be the only company with UNIX workstations that also run all popular personal computer apps. Sun and Microsoft would be in deep trouble. And by '95, Apple would run NextStep on consumer Macs and Microsoft wouldn't have any product with unique advantages to grab 90%+ market share.

    16. Re:II GS by SteeldrivingJon · · Score: 1

      "If he wasn't kicked out from Apple, NeXT would no doubt have Mac application compatibility. Then Apple would be the only company with UNIX workstations that also run all popular personal computer apps. Sun and Microsoft would be in deep trouble."

      That's not clear to me.

      The Unix workstation aspect may have been required of Jobs by terms of his departure from Apple. By going for a high-end workstation, he was staying well out of Apple's 1985 market.

      Had he stayed at Apple, he may well have stayed closer to the Mac/Lisa concept, and the MacOS, and not ventured into Unix, Objective-C, Display Postscript, etc.

      So it's probably for the best that NeXT got started.

      Perhaps the best scenario would have been for Apple to have not gotten involved with Taligent, and for them to have bought NeXT around 1994/1995, before NeXT de-emphasized the OS in favor of OS-independent products.

      And, before Sun got Java off the ground.

      --
      September 2011: Looking for Cocoa/iOS work in Boston area Cocoa Programmer Quincy, MA
    17. Re:II GS by thecardinal · · Score: 1

      Only in the US - here in the UK, Acorn ruled in education - the BBC Model B, and to a much smaller extent the Acorn Archimedes later on. You still see them in schools from time to time, as the basic educational software is still sound (basics of maths/english haven't really changed that much ... 1 and 1 is still normally 2, isn't it?)

    18. Re:II GS by scheme · · Score: 1
      1 and 1 is still normally 2, isn't it?

      Not if you're working in Z/1Z.

      --
      "When you sit with a nice girl for two hours, it seems like two minutes. When you sit on a hot stove for two minutes, it
    19. Re:II GS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Logically, if they had wanted to keep the market, they should have maintained the ][ series rather than launching an incompatible computer. There's no real reason why we couldn't have 3Ghz 32-bit descendants of the 6502 today.


      You, sir, have just made my day. I would give you monies if I had them.
    20. Re:II GS by Myrkridian42 · · Score: 1

      Logically, if they had wanted to keep the market, they should have maintained the ][ series rather than launching an incompatible computer. There's no real reason why we couldn't have 3Ghz 32-bit descendants of the 6502 today.

      Oh yes there is. Remember, this was 1984, the concept of the personal computer was still relatively new. Something brand-new, ignoring compatibility with existing software, this was happening every few years until that point. For Apple to extend the Apple ][ line would have been mere evolution, not revolution as was the Macintosh. It's possible this hypothetical computer based on the Apple ][ could have taken off, but it would have never became the Mac we know today. There would be no OS X. Why would they bother make such a huge switch? Sure, it might be better, but customers may not want to make that kind of transition. The point is, Apple would have learned to play it safe, not break new ground. And even if they got 90% share of the market, I don't think it would have been worth it.
    21. Re:II GS by Moraelin · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Egads, what a ghastly thought.

      One of the major peeves I have with the x86 architecture is that the whole instruction set is a kludge. And seein' as I _am_ otherwise a PC fan and have some years of x86 assembly programming experience, I think I can say that as a fact, not trolling.

      We've been stuck with, what, 8 general purpose registers? And for what? Just so someone could theoretically still run an ancient 8086 piece of software on it. Except it still won't actually run any software from that era, except in an emulator like DosBox, because of other factors.

      And in turn the 8086 was hardly more than a 16 bit hack of the 8080 architecture.

      And for an awfully long time, those 8 weren't even that general purpose. E.g., "LOOP" (decrement a counter, jump back to the beginning of the loop if not zero) would _only_ work on CX. E.g., integer multiplication or division again, were hard wired to use only AX and DX. Etc.

      And this isn't just about assembly programming. Yeah, you could spend days rewriting stuff to get juuust the right combination of registers for it to work right. It also hurt compiler generated code, and even today it still does. Probably 99% of the speed advantage an Athlon 64 gets in 64 bit mode comes just from AMD's _finally_ breaking byte code compatibility in that mode, to provide twice the number of general purpose registers.

      Now kindly get your old Apple II manuals and look at the 6502's instruction set. Egad. Just the thought of giving that one 32 bit registers and calling it a day, is not a pleasant thought.

      No, IMHO Apple did the right thing there. They could have emulated the 6502, though, like they did with the 68000 when they moved to PowerPC.

      --
      A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
    22. Re:II GS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Judging by how many times I've seen that reference lately, I think she's the next Natalie Portman.

    23. Re:II GS by ThousandStars · · Score: 1
      If he wasn't kicked out from Apple, NeXT would no doubt have Mac application compatibility. Then Apple would be the only company with UNIX workstations that also run all popular personal computer apps. Sun and Microsoft would be in deep trouble. And by '95, Apple would run NextStep on consumer Macs and Microsoft wouldn't have any product with unique advantages to grab 90%+ market share.

      I doubt it. Sun mostly made servers, and Apple hardware on that time wasn't fast or robust enough to be used on servers. Meanwhile, the expense of Macs is what I think fundamentally doomed them -- I remember family members in the late 80s and early 90s deciding how to get on the PC train. They would look at the nice, $1,600 Mac or the bargain $1,000 DOS and later Windows machine. The Mac looked better but cost more. Virtually all of them went with PCs (which is what I always used. I fondly remember making boot disks for Ultima 7. Those were the days). MS's biggest product advantage has always been 1) its price compared to competitors and 2) its increasing size, which allowed it to control the APIs and dictate licensing terms. I don't think NeXT would have made a dent.

    24. Re:II GS by NuShrike · · Score: 2

      The IIGS came out in '86. It predates the Mac II (FIRST Mac with color, ADB, separate monitor, HD support) by at least a few months.

      The IIGS had ADB keyboard & mouse, separate RGB monitor, color Quickdraw II, platinum color, external 3.5" drives, 8-bit wavetable sound, up to 8MB of ram and still a lot of expandibility.

      Timeline and development-wise, modern Macs are really "Fake GSs". The IIGS plowed the way ahead of the Macs.

      At this point in time, I don't remember Macs being established as the "future" at all. It was probably only in Job's reality distortion bubble. All the software was still Apple II and very little "Mac" in the way it's all PC now and Mac is a niche.

      I can't remember if Macs were even established as DTP houses at this time yet (1986). Most schools were stocked with Apple IIes, and that WAS your future generation of users and developers.

      It seem more of Woz was done with his final project and was going to party out rest of his life off (which stopped after the airplane accident), and Jobs was pushing very hard with his renegade "business" Macintosh project to prove that "Apple" wasn't a toy making company.

      Ignoring of course how well the Apple II was doing and the generation it was creating.

      Remember, up until the late 90s, Apple II sales entirely funded Mac R&D even though all advertising stopped by the late 80s, early 90s for the Apple IIs. This EOL product sold itself and funded another project for the next 8-9 years!

      I would've been logical to continue the Apple II line in an evolutionary way as DOS to Windows to NT has, instead of doing the sudden break to Mac, then sudden break to PowerPC, then sudden break to OSX (not that the last bit is bad).

      You can still run a lot of your ancient PC software on modern hardware as a demonstration how well the PC transition went, and I submit that's why it dominates

      I also submit that dropping the AppleII was Apple's single most biggest failure and blunder of the kind that usually kills a company like Commodore squandering their Amiga potential.

      Amazingly, Apple survived (with a lot of revenue and loyalty help from the educational market), long enough to finally came out with a MAINSTREAM product that actually sells and makes revenue (iPod).

    25. Re:II GS by lisaparratt · · Score: 1

      You're forgetting that an ancestor of the 6502 does exist: the ARM. It was designed as a 32-bit RISC chip for ARM machines by two 6502 hackers, and the similarities are plain to see.

    26. Re:II GS by John_Booty · · Score: 1

      One reason lots of other companies that emerged as PC makers in the 80s went on to massively outgrow Apple (think, Compaq...) is that they managed their transition from the 8/16 bit IBM PC through lots of architecture and CPU generations without suddenly dropping support for their existing customer base or alientating them completely.

      As a IIGS owner, I agree and feel your pain there. I waited twelve years for my parents to buy me a computer and when I finally did, it was an evolutionary dead-end. I had a lot of fun with it, but the dead-end aspect was kind of a bummer.

      Would you say that Apple has improved on that aspect since then, though? They went to great lengths to retain backwards compatibility during the 68K-->PPC transition (fat binaries!) and during the OS9-->OSX transition (a complete Classic emulation layer which isn't perfect, but how could it be?).

      I also think that the Mac wouldn't have been as special if it wasn't a total clean break from the AppleII. It was pretty much a marvel of engineering created by a small semi-secret team inside Apple. Its graphics power and other aspects were pretty revolutionary. I can't help but think that it would have been quite a bit less revolutionary if it maintained backwards compatibility.

      That's not to say the decision to maroon AppleII users was right or wrong. There's never justification for abandoning customers. But at least something good (a pretty special new personal computer) was born of it.

      ...wait, was I trying to make a point? Because I really failed, I think.

      --

      OtakuBooty.com: Smart, funny, sexy nerds.
    27. Re:II GS by Moraelin · · Score: 1

      Admittedly, I have no clue about the ARM, so I can't really comment there. Still, I'm _guessing_ it's not just a 32 bit version of the 6502, nor opcode compatible. Which is basically what the parent poster was asking for: a machine which can still run Apple ][ programs and take Apple ][ hardware. There's IMHO a bit of a difference between just design similarities, and being hampered by literal 100% compatibility to an Apple ][.

      --
      A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
    28. Re:II GS by JabberWokky · · Score: 1
      Cute, but "cheap" is relative to the object being purchased, and a "cheap color Mac" would have been too expensive to the market that was buying the IIgs. Just like many people can buy a "cheap car", but buying a "cheap cruise ship" (at several million dollars) is out of their range.

      --
      Evan

      --
      "$30 for the One True Ring. $10 each additional ring!" -- JRR "Bob" Tolkien
    29. Re:II GS by 2sheds · · Score: 1

      Only for sufficiently high values of 1...

      --

      Absit Invidia
    30. Re:II GS by BobWeiner · · Score: 1

      To ease the transition for Apple IIGS owners, Apple could have (and, I believe, SHOULD have) created a IIGS emulator. Thankfully, some IIGS emulators for the Mac now exist. I personally know a lot of people (including myself) who were resentful of Macs because of Apple's callous disregard of the Apple II.

      --
      The PC Weenies: 11 Years of Online Tech 'Too
    31. Re:II GS by DenDave · · Score: 2, Insightful
      The best thing for Apple the *computer* company right now might be to spin off or float iPod as a separate division, much as 3Com spun off Palm. use the massive cash raised to do something exciting for the computer line like, I don't know, buy Sun or something! Apple would then be selling both low-end, mid-range, and high-end Unix products!


      I think you missed the point at last Macworld.. Jobs is going for the total, "rich" computing experience and that means Ipod/Itunes is central to the strategy. Spinning off Ipod/Itunes would basically mean nothing has changed since 1999.. The MiniMac and Ibook range are tog et new clients into the fold.. as Jobs puts it, to get the new users introduced to OS-x and annex all the integrated software, I-Life... Once you have a mac in (almost) every (pc)household you can be sure that Itunes will be the monopolist on the music segment. I suspect that Itunes may just be what necks the music industry as we know it, they will all be slaves to Jobs,. Just look and see what Sony does.. they would like to compete with Apple on Music but they won't, they will bend over and take it up the firewire...

      --
      -if at first you don't succeed, stay the heck away from paragliding.
    32. Re:II GS by DenDave · · Score: 1

      Yep.. I remember.. we had just got a II GS (they sold em till about 87 I believe..) after we got a mac... funny eh? But the school was an Apple II shop so the mac stayed a loner.. except i the design class we had two of em and that was where I really learned to love the thing.. Mac CAD.. now that was the way to go about a school project.. boy did that rock... *sigh*

      --
      -if at first you don't succeed, stay the heck away from paragliding.
    33. Re:II GS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The point is, Apple would have learned to play it safe, not break new ground. And even if they got 90% share of the market, I don't think it would have been worth it.


      Uh, maybe they think different.
    34. Re:II GS by torpor · · Score: 1

      fair point about the x86 register usage, but did you know that the OSX ABI doesn't use all the PPC's registers properly either?

      thats right kids, we're still using an ABI thats 'register compatible' with Nextstep, which means .. Motorola 68k..

      --
      ; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
    35. Re:II GS by CrazyTalk · · Score: 1

      We DID have decendants of the 6502 - the Motorola 68000 series processors in the pre-power PC Macs.

    36. Re:II GS by kalidasa · · Score: 1

      Witness the prolonged dullness and fading away of the Mac line the past few years as the iPod has obsessed the one-track-mind of Jobs.


      What? Mac sales were up something like 26% - you call that "fading away?" Almost double the overall growth in the market? How do you define "recovery?"

    37. Re:II GS by Megane · · Score: 1
      There's no real reason why we couldn't have 3Ghz 32-bit descendants of the 6502 today.

      Other than the minor detail that it probably would be a far worse hack than the 8086/186/286/386 instruction set. I take it you haven't done much assembly lanugage programming? (Actually, there were plans to make a 65832, of which the only surviving info seems to be a preliminary manual sent to a high school student who wrote WDC asking about it!)

      IMHO, I've always thought that the Mac LC + Apple ][ module (or something equivalent) is what Apple should have produced instead of the IIgs. That would have provided some way to get a relatively low-end Mac, but still be able to run the old 6502 software. The IIgs was really the problem, because it started a whole new platform of 65816 software that Apple had to abandon, and all the bad vibes that go with abandoning a platform.

      --
      #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
    38. Re:II GS by DarkVader · · Score: 1

      But they could have done it right, and made a computer that was a continuation of the Apple II line, and had the advances of the Mac. The Apple IIgs proved it could be done. The Mac OS X transition followed very closely the pattern Apple established with the IIgs transition - provide a great new OS, with a compatibility box to run most of the old software.

      No, what Apple did in the late '80s and early '90s was just plain stupid. The LC - //e card was too little, too late.

      It took over 10 years for them to even begin to recover what they lost in the '80s.

      Now, before anyone accuses me of being anti-Apple, I've had Apples continuously since 1982, I've never had a x86 as my primary computer. I got my first Mac in '92, and I've never considered leaving Apples because the alternative was such garbage, at least until Linux got a decent desktop.

      But my IIgs is still fully functional.

    39. Re:II GS by operagost · · Score: 1

      The 6502 series was 8-bit and it would have required a leap to a 16-bit processor like the 68K anyway, so Apple made the right choice.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    40. Re:II GS by OwnedByTwoCats · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I bought an Apple //e in 1983; four-digit serial number. So I watched events closely. I was tempted to get the motherboard replacement to upgrade the //e to a //GS, but I never decided the cost would be worth it.

      The mac turnaround came with the LaserWriter and the "Fat Mac" (Mac 512) in 1985. By Autumn of 1986, when the IIGS came out, the Mac was well-established as the graphics machine. MacDraw was incredible. The page layout programs (_Ready,_Set,_Go!_, 1-2-3, PageMaker) and the LaserWriter had already created a new industry. Yes, they were pricey.

      By 1987, it was clear that the 65816 processor would never develop "legs". Apple, by itself, was too small to keep Western Design Center in business and making competitive processors. The IIGS was 2.8 MHz; the Macintosh was 8 MHz. And the 68000 wasn't just Apple's: Atari, Amiga, Apollo, and Sun were also using 68000s.

      The Mac system architecture was clean, with plenty of room to grow. Only minor tweaks were needed to enable memory to grow past 8 Megabytes (the "32-bit clean" issue with Applications and firmware in ROMs) when a 1 MB machine was big, and PCs were still struggling to get past 640K. The IIGS couldn't grow like that. GS/OS was clearly porting Mac technologies back to the IIGS.

      The Apple //e was EOL'ed in 1993 and the IIGS was EOL'ed in 1992. So the claim that the Apple II series supported Mac R&D into the late 1990s is uninformed.

    41. Re:II GS by operagost · · Score: 1

      In my day, our processors had THREE registers and we liked it! Spoiled rotten kids ...

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    42. Re:II GS by prockcore · · Score: 1

      Given that, making the IIGS into a "Fake Mac" (and it was a better Fake Mac than most of the compeititon) was a big mistake.

      It was a better fake mac than the real macs. It had better graphics and sound than the real mac at the time. It had better sound that virtually anything else at the time.

      It was just really really slow.

    43. Re:II GS by prockcore · · Score: 1

      By Autumn of 1986, when the IIGS came out, the Mac was well-established as the graphics machine. MacDraw was incredible.

      If you say so. By Autumn of 86, the mac was still Black and White. The IIgs supported 16 colors per scanline (and some software took advantage of this to display 3200 color images).

      Only minor tweaks were needed to enable memory to grow past 8 Megabytes

      The IIgs's addressing scheme supported 16 megs of addressable memory. The top 128k of that was ROM though.


      By 1987, it was clear that the 65816 processor would never develop "legs". Apple, by itself, was too small to keep Western Design Center in business and making competitive processors.


      And yet they stayed in business and the 65816 found its way into the SNES.

    44. Re:II GS by theLastPossibleName · · Score: 1

      shouldn't that be "they will bend over and take it up the iLink?"

    45. Re:II GS by Insightfill · · Score: 1
      If he wasn't kicked out from Apple, NeXT would no doubt have Mac application compatibility.

      I worked at a high school Mac/NeXT computer lab in the early 90s. We had 16 NeXT workstations, and were able to use a program called "Executor" by Ardis Software to run Mac apps on the NeXT station. Since the NeXTs were running on 68030/68040 chips, this wasn't a big leap.

      Kinda neat running Word 5.1 on a NeXT box!

    46. Re:II GS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah but in your day you had to peddle on a bike to generate electricity, non of this powerstation business.

    47. Re:II GS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which reminds me, how is Noah? Still got the Ark?

    48. Re:II GS by Dogtanian · · Score: 1

      And in turn the 8086 was hardly more than a 16 bit hack of the 8080 architecture.

      Heck, wasn't *that* somewhat based on the 8008, which was in turn a hack of the 4004?

      I mean, I'm not saying they're software compatible, but doesn't it seem incredible (and arguably dismaying) that the latest Pentium 4s include some design heritage dating back to the first commercially-available CPU, circa 1971?!

      --
      "Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
    49. Re:II GS by OwnedByTwoCats · · Score: 1

      By 1987, it was clear that the 65816 processor would never develop "legs". Apple, by itself, was too small to keep Western Design Center in business and making competitive processors.

      And yet they stayed in business and the 65816 found its way into the SNES.


      The 65816 got its doors blown off in the speed race by the end of the 1980s. And there was no money to keep it competitive. So it had to find niches where it could survive.
    50. Re:II GS by OwnedByTwoCats · · Score: 2, Informative

      It took over 10 years for them to even begin to recover what they lost in the '80s.

      Let's remember what Apple "Lost" in the 1980s.

      Under John Sculley's leadership, Apple went from annual revenues of $1 Billion (1985) all the way down to $10 Billion (1993). At that point in time, Apple was still the largest personal computer company. The Mac was 8 to 10% of the market, and PC clones were all of the rest.
    51. Re:II GS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think the word you are looking for is progeny.

    52. Re:II GS by iamacat · · Score: 1

      Well, they wouldn't go after 8-CPU servers, but they wouldn't run NextStep on a Quadra either. The actual NeXT hardware was nice enough and was the only UNIX workstation you could give to non C.Sci folk. If Apple was behind it, they could spend more resources on development and justify higher price by both their reputation and assurance that you can buy $1600 Macs for employees with lighter computer use and have network interoperability and applications that run on both.

      I don't know about Ultima 7, but PCs weren't very suitable for desktop publishing, large 32-bit apps or over-the-net collaboration back in the days. As for centralized administration, you needed someone walking around with DOS/Windows floppies to reinstall your stuff when you screwed it up.

    53. Re:II GS by OwnedByTwoCats · · Score: 1

      Apple produced the IIGS in 1986. And the Mac LC was introduced in 1990. Four years later.

      Now, a IIGS card for the LC series would have been good.

    54. Re:II GS by DarkVader · · Score: 1

      But the Apple II in the early '80s was 50% of the market. Sculley didn't even manage a halfway respectable holding pattern in terms of market share.

      With a cash cow like the II that Apple could ride, they couldn't help but have some revenue growth in an industry expanding like the computer industry in the late '80s.

      Sculley understood soft drinks - a mature industry. He had no idea what to do with a compuer company.

    55. Re:II GS by soft_guy · · Score: 1

      I also submit that dropping the AppleII was Apple's single most biggest failure and blunder of the kind that usually kills a company like Commodore squandering their Amiga potential.

      I don't see how Apple dropping the Apple II for the Mac is any different than Commodore dropping the 64 for the Amiga or Atari dropping the 8Bit line for the ST.

      --
      Avoid Missing Ball for High Score
    56. Re:II GS by snilloc · · Score: 1
      That argument doesn't make sense, even if Apple made the right proc move. Why introduce an extra processor switch that only alienates your customer base?

      Real Life Apple - Apple][... Mac... 68000 Mac.

      Alternate Universe Apple - Apple ][... 68000 Apple.

      Apple has made processor transitions with the mac that have gone relatively well... why couldn't the same evolution have occurred with an Apple][ ancestor?

    57. Re:II GS by NuShrike · · Score: 1

      '84 to '86 (< 2 years) isn't really a good proof of "well-established". I'm pretty sure you can find sales figures of how "well-established" Macintosh sales were too.

      During '87s, the 65816 did outperform the 68000 clock for clock if you checked the synthetic benchmarks such as dhrystone. Have you ever tried to compile C homework between the Mac or IIGS? I did and the Mac Plus/SE was at least 2x slower and ram limited.

      But of course, it's software, not hardware that determines the winner and yes the Mac was a much cleaner 32-bit architecture, but it didn't get its legs until a few more years later. Why did Apple need to disavow its own momentum and mindshare with the Apple II, unless it's because it wasn't Job's baby?

      At this same time, there have been rumors of a 65C832 in development by WDC (vaporware) as well as a prototype ARM-Apple II that would've gave the obvious headroom, as well as a consumer friendly upgrade/migration path. There was also the Mark Twain ROM04 IIGS freshener project.

      At the time, GS/OS did support up to 8MB of ram since '87. Matching that with the lower software bloat, it was quite head-n-shoulders above even the "business" game PCs which continued to be software limited to 640K.

      Jobs of course wouldn't have wanted his Mac baby killed in the cradle, so any significant Apple II improvement that would have eclipsed the Mac would be stillborn. And that management bias probably continued to hold sway after Jobs left. It IS always better to concentrate on one product than split your resources.

      Apple II sales did support the Macs into the 90s if just not into the late 90s... Wasn't Apple a dying company in the late 90s until Jobs came back? :)

      So whatever, this still qualifies as an Apple flop. :)

    58. Re:II GS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would have said descendant.

  99. "Flagship OS" by ZeekWatson · · Score: 1

    Guess you never used the previous Flagship OS, known as MacOS.

    Co-operative multi-tasking, crappy memory protection, and it goes downhill from there...

  100. Re:"Apples == expensive" not a stereotype by Leo+McGarry · · Score: 1

    VT paid list price for their supercomputer. At least for the G5s. I guess it's possible that they got a discount on the Infiniband switches or something.

  101. Not everything Apple touches turns to gold by rtphokie · · Score: 1

    Wow, the first comment was one criticising any article that dare look at Apple in anything but the most positive light. Big surprise.

    What went wrong with the Mac Portable is just as worthy of a question as what went right with the Powerbook. That are even better questions when asked together.

    What is it about Apple that makes it's supporters so sensitive? This article doesn't look like a criticism as much as it looks like an analysis, and a worthy one at that. It's a computer not a lifestyle.

    "Adversity reveals genius and prosperity hides it. " - Horace

  102. Is Jobs still a deadbeat dad? by glrotate · · Score: 1

    After finding that out I pretty much lost all respect for the guy.

    1. Re:Is Jobs still a deadbeat dad? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Give the guy a break. Even if he is a "deadbeat dad," he could very well be the product of environment, i.e. given up for adoption by his mother, having never known his biological father.

    2. Re:Is Jobs still a deadbeat dad? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He was already a millionare at the time -- he had no excuse.

  103. Current flop - Developers by 1000101 · · Score: 0, Troll

    One of Apple's "flops" that continues to this day is it's Developer support. There's more than one reason why there isn't as much software available for Macs, and poor developers relations is one of them. Sure they have the Developer Connection, but their documentation sucks big time and Xcode isn't even in the same league as Visual Studio .NET. Apple could actually learn a thing or two from the MSDN.

    1. Re:Current flop - Developers by goMac2500 · · Score: 1

      Are you an actual Apple developer? Their developer support is top notch. I can even get replies from Apple engineers on Apple's mailing lists. OS bugs are simple to submit. Just the other day Apple sent me a request making sure a bug I filed a year ago was still fixed. The documentation is great and every single last thing is covered. Not to mention they send all their WWDC sessions to developers out on DVD so we can get tutorial sessions on coding for the next version of OS X straight from the teams that wrote the feature. I'd like to see Microsoft do that...

    2. Re:Current flop - Developers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And are you a MSDN developer? They've had the PDC developer tutorial stuff posted online for a long time.

  104. Re:"Apples == expensive" not a stereotype by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I can't believe there are still fools out there who believe that VA Tech was anything more than a marketing exercise for Apple.

    "We don't need ECC!"
    "Whoops! We do need ECC. Sell all the machines!"
    "Whoops! Apple can't ship us xServes -- our cluster has been offline for 4 months!"
    "(That's OK, we really weren't doing anything with it anyway except running linpack benchmarks for publication on Apple.com. Mission Accomplished!)"

  105. I know flamebait... by also+aswell · · Score: 1

    I've meta moderated enough here to know when a subject line is out and out flamebait. This whole damn topic is flamebait from the start.

    --
    "Where did this apple come from?"
    --Alan Turing
  106. Dumb poster by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Way to go kelly you thought you were real smart trying to pull a Roland Piquepaille on us and posting a link of your web site on Slashdot. And now your website is down, your server is on fire, and no hits for poor little old you.

  107. Re:"Apples == expensive" not a stereotype by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They also got a huge labor discount for assembly and maintenance.

  108. oh, shut the fuck up fatty by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    if anything, it was a retrospective piece about how apple missed opportunities. nothing in the article is explicitly bashing apple. you're just adding noise by not having read the article and having come up with some unbased opinion.

  109. MOD PARENT UP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's hard to spot, but he's right!

    1. Re:MOD PARENT UP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Use view source, and search for

  110. Re:Clones? by MrFreak · · Score: 2, Interesting

    This article doesn't mention Apple's flirtation with clones-- probably the single largest flop in the company's history. I still fondly remember my PowerTower.

  111. Help with the reference by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Great reference, DS.

    http://bible.cc/luke/7-38.htm

    There are so many levels this post is working on.

  112. Tangerine by Macgrrl · · Score: 1

    My husband still has his Tangerine iBook/300, even though he has a AL PB17" to replace it, the Tangerine iBook is still his sentimental favourite

    --
    Sara
    Designer, Gamer, Macgrrl in an XP World
    1. Re:Tangerine by linuxbert · · Score: 1

      I have a blueberry ibook 300 as well and i use it every day. I tell people i'll give it up when its pried from my cold dead hands.

      i love my mac

  113. I wouldn't call an OS that owns the market a flop. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You fail at life.

  114. Agreed by yoshi_mon · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Over the years I spent a goodly bit on my //e's system. Transwarp, 10 MEG HD, 1 MEG of RAM on my 80 col card. Now even though the base //gs system had a lot of things built into it such that some of my hardware would be obsolete the handwriting was already on the wall for the // series.

    I kept my //e around for some time and it did ok but I eventually had to turn to the PC. It had the feel of a real hackers box rather than the handholding you got with a Mac and didn't cost an arm and a leg to boot.

    Well that's all water under the bridge at this point and I'm happy to see Apple doing well but now they are up against Linux/BSD for the hackers market and of course MS will not go quietly.

    --

    Really, I know what I'm doing...Ohhhh, look at the shiny buttons!
    1. Re:Agreed by OwnedByTwoCats · · Score: 1

      Oh, man. The boards I put into my //e. I don't remember how I stumbled on Synetix Systems. I got their RAM board (288K! four banks of 64K-bit chips; two banks of 16K). But it made UCSD Pascal a joy, rather than a chore. I got their SuperSprite card as well; Voice Synthesizer (I forget the name of the card they cloned...), Clock, and sprite graphics on one board.

      Later, I discovered Applied Engineering, and replaced the Extended 80 Column card with one of theirs, and eventually filled it up with four banks of 256K-bit chips. Could it hold six? The Synetix card left; replaced IIRC with a card for the AE 3.5" disk drive.

      I still hope to get images of all the disks off of the machine, and onto a live computer.

  115. Exploding external disk drives by donnz · · Score: 2, Funny

    If you plugged the pins in out of line at the next power up they went BANG and dislodged your boss' toupee. Mind you, once bitten...

    --
    -- Free software on every PC on every desk
  116. top 10 flops? by mrcdeckard · · Score: 1

    since when we do we rank the most important 10 floating point operations? badaboom. cd /..

    --
    "Physics is like sex. Sure, it may give some practical results, but that's not why we do it." - R. Feynman
  117. Flopped! by Macgrrl · · Score: 1

    I'm not sure what this says about me as a Mac user - I used eWorld, typeset a book on a Macintosh Portable, and still have a Dalmation Spotted iMac at home as a file server for our wireless powerbooks. :)

    --
    Sara
    Designer, Gamer, Macgrrl in an XP World
  118. Re:What is a "brown bag release"? by tomhudson · · Score: 2, Insightful
    One of the linux kernels (2.2.1) had bugs that was so bad that it made you want to reach for a barf bag^W^W^W^W^Wwear a brown bag over your head - hence "brown bag release". http://lwn.net/1999/0204/kernel.php3
    The current kernel release is 2.2.1. This is the "brown paper bag" release, so named by Linus since it did have a problem or two sufficiently embarrassing to make him want to wear a bag over his head in public for a while. Foremost among those was, of course, the "ldd core" bug reported last week, which allowed any user to crash the system.
  119. Apple /// NOT a flop by spywarearcata.com · · Score: 1

    The company was going public and we were delivering the "pink sheet" of disclosures... it claimed we were not a one product company, that we had shipped two product lines.

    A single Apple /// was shipped to a relative of Wendell (I believe) so that the disclosure was accurate.

    By sacrificing the reliability of the Apple /// Apple was able to raise a few more 100's of millions of dollars that were ploughed into product development...

    So, even if the Apple /// has sold only one machine, it made a ton of money for Apple.

    And SOS was good too... Bob Etheredge in Bandley 3 had the lead and was doing the most professional job he could given the daily euphoria that was Apple culture.

  120. Re:"Apples == expensive" not a stereotype by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    OK. Here is my criteria

    1. Runs GarageBand

    that's it. How much do I have to spend on a PC for this one?

  121. Word 6 by steveha · · Score: 3, Informative

    From the article:

    The new manager decided to just use WinWord 2.0's code-base on the Mac.

    Not quite correct. I worked there around that time.

    The decision was to use the same source code to build both Windows and Mac versions.

    With Pyramid, the goal was to make a word processor that would be carefully designed: back end universal, front end specific to each supported OS (which would be Windows, MacOS, and possibly OS/2 PM). When Pyramid didn't work out as well as they hoped, they decided to take the Windows source code and build it for MacOS.

    Rather than running wild with #ifdef statements and trying to make a native Mac interface, they used a compatibility library. IIRC this was called WLM (Windows Layer for Macintosh). It was not unlike the "winelib" library.

    Because both Windows Word and Mac Word were compiled from the same source code, the two products became fully compatible. This was a major leap in features for the Mac Word product. Previous versions of Mac Word had been much smaller and faster, but they were also missing features compared to Windows Word, which meant that file compatibility was not 100%. (You can't import a file, and then export that file with edits, if your word processor does not support all the features that file uses!)

    Business users were much happier with Mac Word 6 because of the file compatibility. Home users, students, and magazine reporters tended to be annoyed about the slower speed of Word 6 compared to the older versions. There was a bug that made the "word count" feature particularly slow, and Microsoft caught a lot of heat from the press because magazine reporters tend to care a lot about word counts.

    As for it being a top 10 flop, I disagree. I don't think you can reasonably call it a failure. From Mac Word 6 onward, every version of Word for the Mac has had good feature compatibility with Windows Word, and of course Macs got faster and got more RAM. And Microsoft wasn't making enough money on the Mac version to continue to support a complete extra development team with its own code base.

    And by the way, the Mac developers I knew at Microsoft all really loved the Mac and wanted to make good software for it. You can accuse Microsoft of not caring about the Mac, or grudgingly writing code for it, but it's not true.

    steveha

    --
    lf(1): it's like ls(1) but sorts filenames by extension, tersely
    1. Re:Word 6 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Word 6 was a dog! Glacially slow... bug-ridden... overpriced... It was the worst piece of software Microsoft had ever created for the Macintosh. As a matter of fact, it ranks up there with Windows ME and BOB as monumental Microsoft failures.

    2. Re:Word 6 by GlassHeart · · Score: 1
      (You can't import a file, and then export that file with edits, if your word processor does not support all the features that file uses!)

      Sure you can. Let's take tables as a feature, for example. A word processor that doesn't support tables will obviously not be able to display or let you edit them. However, it still can let you edit the rest of the document while saving any table exactly as it was read, provided that the file format was designed to do that. I don't know anything about the Word .doc format, but this concept is not a recent invention. The IFF format circa 1985, for example, can contain images, sound clips, and various other data types. A processor is expected to skip over chunks it doesn't understand, and just preserve them verbatim if it needs to change the file.

    3. Re:Word 6 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So the wags who accused Microsoft of just bundling Word 6 for Windows with a Windows emulator and selling the combination as Word 6 for Mac (not an unreasonable assumption in view of the glacial speed and horrid interface of Word 6 Mac), weren't too far off, then? ;-P

    4. Re:Word 6 by diamondsw · · Score: 1

      No, I'm sorry. Taking 30 seconds to a minute to launch Word was a crime against humanity, not a flop. And then to be subjected to that monstrosity you call an interface.

      Oh no, it was a flop. What do you think spurred a half-dozen word processing competitors in the mid-90's? Why was Office '98 such a huge deal in the Mac world? It finally made it usable again.

      --
      I don't know what kind of crack I was on, but I suspect it was decaf.
  122. Pricing has been much the same for 20 years by toby · · Score: 0, Flamebait
    Some outrageous prices during the '90s - This was where the Mac got its "overpriced" reputation. I recall that the list price for a Quadra 950 was close to $10,000
    I'm not sure that's changed. Since 1985 or so, an entry level system has always been about A$3500 and a decent production system around $A5-7,000. Those benchmarks have lasted all 20 years, from 68000 through G5: if you want a dual G5 and big monitor, it's still about US$10,000.

    (Don't tell anyone, but the Mac Mini isn't really an "entry" level system - it's meant to entice PC switchers who don't know any better; you could call it the basement entry, I suppose. It's not much more than the Cube specs at today's prices.)

    --
    you had me at #!
    1. Re:Pricing has been much the same for 20 years by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No way...a dual 2.5 Ghz Powermac and a 23" screen is $6000, well loaded.

    2. Re:Pricing has been much the same for 20 years by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He was using Australian Dollars, so his figure of A$10,000 is not much off US$6000.

    3. Re:Pricing has been much the same for 20 years by toby · · Score: 1

      Of course, you can spec a system for any price you like... But I know someone who just bought a dual G5 and 30" and the total system cost was US$10,000. I don't pluck these figures from thin air, you know.

      Unfortunately I am separated from my shelf of Mac magazines from the 1980s, so I can't cite exact list prices, but I recall paying around A$3,500 for my Mac Plus in 1987. I am sure that a modest G5 system (more likely entry) would be exactly that today.

      I've been involved in pricing and purchasing every single generation of Macintoshes, and on that basis I can vouch that the price points have been very consistent for the entire 20 year period.

      --
      you had me at #!
    4. Re:Pricing has been much the same for 20 years by Leo+McGarry · · Score: 1

      Since 1985 or so, an entry level system has always been about A$3500 and a decent production system around $A5-7,000.

      Yes, but those are Aussie bucks you're talking about. For sake of comparison, in Australia a cup of coffee costs $28, a pack of cigarettes costs $130 and a mid-sized car costs $350,000.

      (I kid my Aussie friends. I have about AUD$75 in my wallet right now. I keep them around in case I forget to carry a handkerchief. They're plastic, so they wash out real nice.)

    5. Re:Pricing has been much the same for 20 years by Leo+McGarry · · Score: 1

      I know someone who just bought a dual G5 and 30" and the total system cost was US$10,000.

      You do know, don't you, that the 30" Cinema Display costs as much as the top-of-the-line G5? You can literally buy two dual-2.5 GHz G5s for the same price as one plus a 30" display. And if you want something more modest, say a dual-1.8 GHz, you can buy three for that price.

      The 30" Cinema Display is a thing of beauty. Working in front of one is like working in front of a billboard. You have to actually turn your head to see the edges of the screen. It totally fills your peripheral vision. It's the most incredible computer display I've ever seen in my life.

      But fuck, it's expensive.

  123. The Newton or Obligitory Simpsons Quote by Houkster · · Score: 1

    Have we come so far that we have forgetten the Newton? ~~~ Principal Skinner [speaking at an assembly]: Children, the times they are a-becoming quite different. Test scores are at an all-time low, so I've come up with these academic alerts. [hold stack of cards] You will receive one as soon as your grades start to slip in any subject. This way your parents won't have to wait until report card time to punish you. Martin: How innovative. I like it! Kearney: Hey Dolph, take a memo on your Newton: beat up Martin. [Dolph writes "Beat up Martin" which the Newton translates as "Eat up Martha"] Bah! [throws Newton] Martin: [being bonked on the head with the Newton] Ow! ~~~ Or what about the Apple Lisa?

    --
    The Houkster "Oh yeah brother, what you gonna do when Houk O' Mania runs wild on you? Besides wet your pants in laughte
    1. Re:The Newton or Obligitory Simpsons Quote by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I attended a computer show which had demos of the Apple Newton. The guy doing the demo wrote something to the effect of, "Hello my name is Frank" and the newton translated that into "Hello any name is failure". ; )

      I had a Newton Message Pad 120. It had, by far, the best handwriting recognition I have ever used, to this day. It would not only do real English characters, but it would also do cursive.

      There were times when I was really sloppy and then shocked to see it get it right. The Newton got bad press which it never shrugged off. Which was completely unfair to the newer units which worked wonderfully.

      Apples flop with the Newton, was that they dropped it before making it Palm sized with backlit colour. My MP120 was way too bulky for the everyday things I use my Palm Tungsten E for. If they had of made it into something people really could have used it for what it was intended for, we might be hearing "Newton" today in place of "Palm" and it may have laster longer than the Palm appears to be.

  124. The list, according to an alternate article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


    The list, according to an alternate article, in no particular order:

    Apple Pippin - multimedia machine, capable of reading CD ROMs, surfing the Internet and to play games
    OpenDoc - based on interchangeable modules useable within applications (1997)
    Mac TV - the first computer with a bundled TV tuner released to the public, merging the home theater and personal computer (1993)
    Mac XL/Lisa - a new generation of computers to replace the Apple II line, priced at $9,995 at release (1983)
    Microsoft Word 6.0 - was meant to replace the popular Microsoft Word 5.1
    Copland - a new OS under development for Power PC native (begun 1987)
    eWorld - ISP with pictographic "village" interface, $10 per month + $8 per hour (1994)
    Puck Mouse/Kiddie Keyboard - redesigned for release with the iMac (1998)
    Flower Power/Blue Dalmatian iMac - unique looking psychedelic 2nd gen iMac "flavors", discontunued 2 months after release
    Macintosh Portable - a portable machine weighing 16.7 lbs selling for $5,799 (1991)

  125. What does that mean ? by amberp · · Score: 1

    Quote from the article
    "Apple ended up teaming up with Sony to create the PowerBooks, which solved all of the shortcomings of the PowerBooks"

    Under "Macintosh Portable", that's the last line.

    1. Re:What does that mean ? by Cmdr+TECO · · Score: 1
      It means that their editors are about as good as Slashdot's.

      The Portable had the best battery life, and the best keyboard, of any laptop I've ever used.

      --
      echo 33676832766569823265328479713269.8639857989Pq | dc
  126. Apple flops? No Newton? by Latent+Heat · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Gee, what about the Newton? Was that such a big flop that people don't even remember it to make the list?

    The Newton was a Palm Pilot before there was a Palm Pilot, and it was supposed to have handwriting recognition, but it didn't live up to expectations. The breakthrough of the Palm was that you had to relearn your handwriting in this gestures thing the computer could understand.

  127. iBook deaths by philkerr · · Score: 1
    A recent fiasco has been the death of a range of iBook's due to a fault on the logic boards.

    The fault has been serious enough for Apple to run a free repair programme, which has just been extended.

    There have been a large number of complaints about the quality of the iBooks, and a lot of people aren't happy.

    I'm less than happy with Apple UK's service after I sent myiBook in for a new board, and when I got it back the HD was dead. Apple UK have said tough about the drive, even though it was damaged whilst in for repairs.

    Although they make some *really* nice kit, having been bitten by their Customer Support I think I'll go elsewhere for hardware, as you are locked into them.

  128. OpenDoc & Douglas Adams by Mercano · · Score: 1

    Reading the desciption of OpenDoc in TFA, I am reminded of Douglas Adams's article "Frank the Vandal" in MacUser in 1989. (Well, OK, I don't have 15 year old back issues of MacUser lying arround, but I do have "The Salmon of Doubt," which also has the article, the first on in "The Universe" section.) He pretty much describes the same thing, in between moaning about his electrician and talking about his Mac Portable, though he is talking about Hypercard, another canidate for this list.

    --
    #include <signature.h>
  129. Apple Apple Apple Apple Apple... by popo · · Score: 1

    Its all you read about on /. these days.

    Yawn.

    With all the incredible science, video games, nanotech, astrophysics, ip, genomics, sci-fi, communications and other geek culture issues we could be talking about... why on earth is Apple featured so heavily on /.

    (I smell a publicist)

    --
    ------ The best brain training is now totally free : )
  130. Re:Clones? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I still have my PowerTower 166. PPC 604 at 166 MHz, 9 GB SCSI HD, 108 MB RAM, 4 MB VRAM, 10/100 ethernet, SCSI CD-RW and Zip drive. I think I got it in 1996. It was used regularly up until about a year ago for commercial work ( illustration, Freehand, lightweight Photoshop ). It makes me laugh ( or sigh ) when people complain about how the speed bump to a new machine ( such as the new PowerBooks ) is *only* 167 MHz or something. That's the equivalent of a pretty useful computer of not so long ago. Of course I type this on my 1.5 GHz PB G4, 512 MB RAM, 128 MB VRAM and HW accelerated, 80 GB HD, and gig-e which cost me about half as much as the PowerTower IIRC, but time marches on.

    Jo Meder

  131. IIe Card by dcclark · · Score: 0

    Apple was also making IIe's in a different manner around 1992: The IIe Card for the Mac LC. I believe this was available only through Apple's education program (selling to teachers, not students), as it also came bundled with MacWrite, MacDraw, and some gradebook software.

    The LC was my first Mac, and the expansion slot (yes, THE slot) came with an "Apple IIe card" which let you turn your spiffy new 16 MHz Mac into a crappy old IIe. It had a port for a 5.25" floppy drive and other expansion goodies, and you could run the IIe "program" along with Mac apps if you enabled MultiFinder. (This was System 6, before the always-on cooperative multitasking of System 7.)

    Don't get me wrong -- I loved that thing. I learned AppleSoft BASIC on there, and that sparked my interest so much that it really got me started learning how computers WORK. That started me on Mac programming, then *nix, and has continued to this day. I don't think that many people really used (or needed) it though, as it quickly disappeared from the market.

    But still, it was so incongruous to see an old 5.25" floppy drive sitting next to the Mac -- or seeing the huge 40 column display taking over the screen -- and then going back to that nice new spiffy System 6 interface. So yes, although the IIe seemed dead, Apple was doing its best to keep it alive in a few niche markets, and it was a great deal for me.

  132. Not quite true. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There was the LC III, which was a pretty decent machine for its time.

  133. On the other hand by SteeldrivingJon · · Score: 1


    It's a bit aggravating trying to decode which model Mac you've bought these days.

    Do I have a G4 "Mirror Drive Doors"? Or an essentially identical G4 "FW800".

    Then there's my iBook, which is best described as "2001 Dual-USB 500MHz iBook".

    It would seem to be much easier if they were just given simple, distinct product names that would distinguish the otherwise identical models.

    --
    September 2011: Looking for Cocoa/iOS work in Boston area Cocoa Programmer Quincy, MA
  134. A special flop the Slashdot crowd will appreciate: by sakusha · · Score: 4, Interesting

    OK, here's a REAL flop that is so obscure, I bet that 99.9% of Macheads never heard of it, even if they were Mac users at the time it shipped:

    A/UX, the first Unix OS for Mac.

    A/UX included special battery support for the Macintosh Portable (yeah, the first portable, the flop, the really heavy one that used lead-acid batteries) and also had sleep support, which was totally unheard of at that time.

    I took a certification class in A/UX, and the Apple guys told me they didn't seriously expect to sell many units, the product only existed to fulfill requirements for government sales that specified a Unix OS must be available for any personal computer CPU being requisitioned. Nevermind that the users never intended to USE Unix, the bids were rigged against Macs by specifying Unix must be available, and it wasn't, so that meant Macs were disqualified from bids and only PCs would be considered. But Apple won back some major government business by meeting this petty requirement. Cost em a bundle though.

  135. And do not forget... by PaulBu · · Score: 1

    It came with Mathematica bundled! Now a single license for that costs way more that a top-of-the-line PC. And a single UNIX license for that costs more than almost the best Mac available! ;-)

    And, as far as I remeber, Next pioneered CD-roms, or was it CD-Recordables? I remember the cool story that you were supposed to carry your whole system (set up especially for you) on a single disk and boot from that. Knoppix, anyone? ;-)

    I wish I'd have Next Cube somewhere in the corner, maybe I'll buy one on e-bay, just for the coolnest of it... ;-)

    Paul B

    1. Re:And do not forget... by Wetware · · Score: 1

      The removable storage was a 256MB magneto-optical drive. Can't remember the maker. I do remember thinking "who the hell would ever need that much storage?" Silly me.

    2. Re:And do not forget... by SteeldrivingJon · · Score: 1


      The optical disk was cool. The decision to make it the boot device was definitely not.

      At some point it was supplemented with a 40MB swap drive, but it was still sloooow. Imagine swapping to an optical drive which required a pass of the head to heat the media so that the second pass could write at that position.

      When I bought my Cube, from Cornell when they emptied a Cube lab, it was listed as having a non-functional Optical Drive (OD). When I got it home to Philly, I found that, in fact, it did work. Kinda. I was able to boot from it. And it was slow. (The Cube was an 040 with 8MB of RAM.)

      My OD didn't last long, though. It eventually did crap out. The OD would make a distinct sound when it was going bad. I eventually took the heavy damn thing out and smashed it on the sidewalk outside my apartment. Long before that, I'd installed some SCSI discs, and some more RAM, and made it a nicely usable machine.

      --
      September 2011: Looking for Cocoa/iOS work in Boston area Cocoa Programmer Quincy, MA
    3. Re:And do not forget... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think it was Canon

  136. Good correction by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    I had seen only a few pictures of the mini dissasembled before, and did not see the fan - thanks for the correction.

    I was wondering how that was really possible. So now the question is, how loud is the fan in normal use?

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:Good correction by Theaetetus · · Score: 1
      So now the question is, how loud is the fan in normal use?

      25 dB SPL - it's mentioned indirectly as being as quiet as the iMac G5, which mentions in its specs the 25 dB figure.

    2. Re:Good correction by splatterboy · · Score: 1

      I have seen the mini here at the NYC Apple store and it's silent. I had assumed it was fanless because I couldn't hear any fan noise ... Of course the store was packed

      --
      "Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." ~The Honorable Daniel Patrick Moynihan
    3. Re:Good correction by Anonymous+Writer · · Score: 1

      So now the question is, how loud is the fan in normal use?

      Check out this discussion in an earlier story to get an idea.

    4. Re:Good correction by larryj · · Score: 2, Informative

      Very quiet. I still only have 256 megs in mine, so there's a lot of swapping going on. I can't remember exactly what I was doing, but somehow I got the fan to REALLY crank up once (so far). When it's going full force, it is pretty loud. That lasted for less than 30 seconds and then it throttled back down to near silence. I haven't heard it get that fast and loud since and my 512 meg upgrade is on it's way.

      --
      What if the Hokey-Pokey really is what it's all about?
    5. Re:Good correction by Computerguy5 · · Score: 2, Informative
      The fan is near silent in normal use. I've already upgraded to 1GB RAM and I hardly ever use the optical drive, and I'm in a near silent environment, and I can *barely* hear it, if I hear it at all. It's that quiet.

      Now, under heavy use, it does start getting VERY loud. I've had Microsoft RDC crash twice on me, and each time I didn't realize it until I heard the fan spin up to a jet engine pace and volume. When that happened, each time I looked in Activity Monitor and saw that RDC, that I had just closed, was taking up every spare CPU cycle I had. Force quitting the processes brought my CPU use down to normal levels, and within 10 seconds, the fan was silent again.

      Leave it to Microsoft to produce the only software that'll crash on my mac. =P

  137. "Copeland"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    From TFA:
    Copeland (an American composer)
    OK, there is Stewart Copeland, who has contributed such tasty bits as his work on the "Dead Like Me" soundtrack. But, apologies to Police fans, doesn't it seem more likely they'd be giving a tip of the old Apple hat to Aaron Copland, arguably a much more prestigious American composer? You know, "Hoedown," "Fanfare for the Common Man," and many other famous classical motifs not co-opted by Emerson, Lake & Palmer? (Geez, I'm old.)

    So which was the code name, "Copeland" or "Copland"? And was there ever a code name "BHAC"? :-)

  138. I work in R&D by HarveyBirdman · · Score: 1

    We have a mantra. If you don't occasionally fail, you aren't pushing the envelope.

    --
    --- Ban humanity.
    1. Re:I work in R&D by uohcicds · · Score: 1

      Or, to quote Albert Einstein:

      "If we knew what we were doing, it would be research, would it?"

      --
      It's not you: I'm just this horrifically socially awkward with everybody.
  139. Re:Clones? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And to add an AC reply to my previous AC post, what really made the clones so bad for Apple was that at the time I bought it ( IIRC ) the PowerTower 166 was the second fastest Mac available. The fastest was the PowerTower 180. I think the fastest Apple machine was 150 MHz ( 8500, 9500 ?? ). The PowerTower 166 was considerably cheaper than that 150 Mhz Apple machine anyway. Of course the PowerTower had a nasty case, very rugged all metal one which isn't bad I guess, but it drew blood everytime I worked on it and running cables ( especially SCSI ribbon ) was a nightmare.

    Jo Meder

  140. No Kaleida? No Taligent? by SteeldrivingJon · · Score: 1


    The bundle of cash Apple blew on Taligent and Kaleida ought to be on there.

    Maybe Taligent should be wrapped up with Copland and their other aborted OS development efforts.

    --
    September 2011: Looking for Cocoa/iOS work in Boston area Cocoa Programmer Quincy, MA
  141. No Kidding, Try This: by Infinity+Salad · · Score: 1

    So much easier to knock down than to build up? If you want to see that in action, see if the Slashdot community can make a list of the Top Ten Microsoft Success Stories!

  142. Re:A special flop the Slashdot crowd will apprecia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oreo!

  143. Re:"Apples == expensive" not a stereotype by mrchaotica · · Score: 1, Insightful

    I did. I dare you to show me a thin-and-light laptop that's a better value than the 12" iBook.

    --

    "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

  144. Re:My Top...err, Bottom Ten List...and eight more! by Combuchan · · Score: 1

    11. Screwy connectors. For video output we have VGA, Mini VGA, 13w3, DB15, HDI45, all off the top of my head and I'm sure there's more I could kill them for HDI45 alone. That mini AUI--who the hell ever used that?

    12. Poor transition from Apple II to Macintosh. They were two completely seperate machines manufactured by the same company with surprisingly little cross compatibility. Could you even share files between them? Us Apple II owners had virtually no upgrade path when Macintosh came out.

    13. Serial printers.

    14. The IIvx, the LC's, the Performas.

    15. Little component standardization. Drive sleds, motherboards, power supplies, even batteries, you name it, you could rarely make one live Mac out of two dead ones.

    16. Missing the whole IDE/ATAPI boat. All the old macs used to be SCSI which drove up component cost even further. SCSI should have been an option, not mandatory.

    17. Black box POSTing...when you turn on a Mac, you shouldn't hear the sound of broken glass if it's gone south for the winter. Error beeps, some explanation of what just went wrong, anything would've been better than that hideous broken glass sound.

    18. Random non-standard-bus expansion cards...modems, video import, 802.11, bluetooth...

    If I'm wrong, don't moderate, but reply--Since I spent all summer of 2001 refurbishing about 50 random macintoshes for a nonprofit and running into little cross compatibility, I've been very jaded on Macintosh hardware.

    --
    "[T]he single essential element on which all discoveries will be dependent is human freedom." -- Barry Goldwater
  145. Re:"Apples == expensive" not a stereotype by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Mac mini is middle of the road. Compared to a Dell priced at around the same mark, it's got a slightly slower CPU but a vastly better graphics system.

  146. Internationalized software was not a flop! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why do the muslim men at my place of work keep a watering can in the lavatory stall? Is it to wash their anus after a filthy defecation?

    1. Re:Internationalized software was not a flop! by The+MESMERIC · · Score: 2, Interesting

      yes. arab toilets have hose-jets. its not only muslim that washes their poo-holes afterwards - its most of the Eastern countries. Both cultures (Eastern and Western) sees the "other" practice (toilet paper or water) with equal revulsion.

  147. Apple still doesn't get it by realmolo · · Score: 1

    Though Apple is finally keeping their product line focused, they still haven't done what they need to do to get market share-

    Make a powerful Mac that sells for about $1200, complete with monitor. One that will play games well. Which brings us to the next point-

    They need games. They need to just pay-off id Software or Electronic Arts (yeah, they're evil) or any of the big game publishers. Get them to release some big-name games on the Mac FIRST and BEST.

    But that will never happen. The rumor is that Steve Jobs doesn't like video-games.

    I'm not even a fan of the Mac, but it drives me nuts that they continually limit themselves by not acknowledging the fact that price and games drive the market, not "elegance".

    1. Re:Apple still doesn't get it by scottking · · Score: 1
      ...but it drives me nuts that they continually limit themselves by not acknowledging the fact that price and games drive the market

      Drives the market you're in maybe. In our 1%, those aren't important.

      Mac users like me want the computer look good, work well and survive a 24 month period without desperate need of an upgrade.

      I am continually amazed how the Slashdot crowd holds Apple to the same paradigms as the x86 world.

      Try looking at it this way:

      • Is Apple making money?
      • Are they making computers that get their users' jobs done?

      Yes on both counts, which means they will continue to do business, and we will continue to buy their products.

      Jobs once compared the Apple market share to that of Mercedes and BMW, and I think that was a smart way to look at it. Is there anything wrong with being the Mercedes or BMW of the computer industry?

      --
      scott king
    2. Re:Apple still doesn't get it by SteeldrivingJon · · Score: 1


      Personally, I don't think it's that important. Lots of people spend lots of money on games, but probably just as many people don't particularly care about games.

      $1200 seems like a losing price anyway, stuck between the more expensive high-end gaming PCs, and the low-cost consoles.

      Gamers are too fickle anyway.

      --
      September 2011: Looking for Cocoa/iOS work in Boston area Cocoa Programmer Quincy, MA
    3. Re:Apple still doesn't get it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For the home market, games are the computer industry.

      Period.

  148. Re:"Apples == expensive" not a stereotype by smaug195 · · Score: 1

    The Dell 600m has a similar base price point, and identical weight. Yet to call the 12" iBook thin and light isn't really accurate. Thin and light to me is under 4 lbs... which oddly enough no apple laptop has yet cracked.

  149. Cut & Paste Job by demondawn · · Score: 1

    Most of this info is not actually analysis, but cut & paste jobs from macreate.net. Way to research.

    1. Re:Cut & Paste Job by bynary · · Score: 1

      If you look close enough, you can see that the author of the article is also the News Director over at macreate.net. Is it plagiarism when you copy yourself?

      --
      http://www.bynarystudio.com
  150. Apple's Great Quality Meltdown by Shannon+Love · · Score: 3, Interesting

    A list of Apple's greatest mistakes must include the company wide product quality failure that occurred under Michael Spindler (*spit*).

    Every major product shipped in late 95-early 96 under Spindler (*spit*) had a major flaw requiring recall or replacement.

    System 7.5, the 6200 logic board, the plastics on the Powerbook 5300, flaming batteries on powerbooks, video cables on several all-in-one models, and many other flaws. I worked in Apple Tech support at the time and it was hell.

    These were not failures of design but they were severe failures in execution, specifically Spindler's (*spit*) dismantling of all quality control groups and procedures within the company. The "Great Quality Implosion", as veterans call it, would have killed any normal company. Only Apple's near fanatical consumer base saved the company.

    1. Re:Apple's Great Quality Meltdown by SteeldrivingJon · · Score: 1

      These were not failures of design but they were severe failures in execution, specifically Spindler's (*spit*) dismantling of all quality control groups and procedures within the company

      What, did he outsource those functions to the Psychic Friends Network?

      --
      September 2011: Looking for Cocoa/iOS work in Boston area Cocoa Programmer Quincy, MA
    2. Re:Apple's Great Quality Meltdown by Shannon+Love · · Score: 1

      Actually, he had this idea that each group would monitor quality as the product developed. This might have worked except Apple had fragmented in mutually hostile fiefdoms under Scully. Worse, the financial structure within the company meant that the cost of failures of one fiefdom got billed to another. For example, the cost of the failure of plastics in the 5300 wasn't billed to the Powerbook group which designed the unit (and chose the plastics) but to manufacturing.

      Gill changed a lot the dysfunctional financial stuff (for which he received little credit) but he could not bring the fiefs under control. Jobs did this by lopping off heads. Only he had the moral authority to do so without causing a talent flight.

    3. Re:Apple's Great Quality Meltdown by MacDaffy · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The breakup of the quality organization happened under Sculley's watch. I know 'cause I got in trouble for opposing it. I was part of the centralized group that rode herd over Apple quality until the breakup happened. Everything new that Apple made was tossed into this group and tested for compatibility with existing Apple products and with third-party products. It was a great job because it afforded the chance to be the first person in the world to try something.

      The group wasn't composed entirely of geeks--most of them were smart, talented diligent people who knew their products and loved working at Apple. The advantages of it are readily apparent: Economies of scale... independence... cross-training... centralized quality information for management, engineering and marketing... It was an excellent idea and an excellent group.

      I pointed this out in an email to John Sculley when the breakup was proposed. He answered me, said that the points I brought up were good ones that hadn't been raised to him before and asked if I minded if he took it up with the responsible managers.

      Next thing I knew, I was in a small conference room with five layers of management and HR suggesting that I might want to forget my objections and shut the hell up. The breakup went through and quality took a nosedive for a while.

      However, the people from that group were dispersed throughout the company. As time went on, they gained control of their own quality organizations. By the time Steve Jobs returned, he had seasoned, knowledgeable, dedicated quality people throughout the company. Many of them are still there.

    4. Re:Apple's Great Quality Meltdown by Shannon+Love · · Score: 1

      I'll defer to your experience on this matter as you seemed to be far closer to the matter than I was. I was just a peon at the Austin campus at the time. It sounds as if quality control feel victim to the fiefdoms.

      It is possible that the break up QC that I remember had to do with the disbanding of QC within fiefdoms. At least one group of software QC guys got scattered under Spindler(*spit*) but to be honest I don't remember exactly were they were in the org chart. I do know however, that he violently resisted all attempts to reassert quality control. I know because I know a lot of the people who were screaming at him. The products developed and shipped under his watch were horrifically bad quality wise

      I think the "Great Quality Implosion" was caused by (1) fiefdoms (2) dismantling of QC and (3) a manical desire to drive prices as low as possible. Product managers were rewarded for shipping something cheap while the cost of failure was build to another fief.

      You should write down your remembrances of your time at Apple especially things related to the "Great Quality Implosion". I think it is one of the more interesting corporate failures and one that is strangely little studied. Business and computer historians might find it valuable someday.

  151. Re:My Top...err, Bottom Ten List...and eight more! by Theaetetus · · Score: 1
    17. Black box POSTing...when you turn on a Mac, you shouldn't hear the sound of broken glass if it's gone south for the winter. Error beeps, some explanation of what just went wrong, anything would've been better than that hideous broken glass sound.

    Depends who your audience is. If my grandmother flips on her Mac and gets the crash of broken glass, she *knows* something is really really wrong. If she hears three beeps and a blank screen instead of one beep on a PC, she doesn't necessarily even know it's broken.
    The Mac's Open Firmware support gave you the proper POST information, and was there for debuggers/maintainers in an easy to find area, but someplace where consumers wouldn't ever need to think about it.

    Especially 'cause the broken glass sound meant a serious mobo/CPU issue - something far beyond the capabilities of a typical user to fix, unlike software or disk/RAM/peripheral problems.

    18. Random non-standard-bus expansion cards...modems, video import, 802.11, bluetooth...

    Non-standard modems? Not sure what you mean here, since Apple modems spoke the same language as all other modems out there, and could connect to the same lines. Maybe you mean serial modems? No different than serial PC modems.
    802.11 is a flop? You looked around lately? It's everywhere, and Apple's implementation has always been bleeding edge - 802.11b when Linksys was still on a, g when they hit b, etc. Same thing with Firewire and USB - remember when everyone said 'there goes Apple using a non-standard device again'. Now, both are widespread standards. Just try to buy a video camera without Firewire.
    As for Bluetooth, notice how it's standard on the new Powerbooks? Bleeding edge again - give it a year, and all the new cell phones will have it, and they'll instantly sync up with the Macs out there... Give it a year past that, and we'll see widespread PC support, too.

    -T

  152. Re:"Apples == expensive" not a stereotype by mrchaotica · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The Dell comes pretty close, I'll admit, but it's missing a CD burner and wi-fi, and the extra RAM isn't enough to make up for that. Plus, it's got a 14.1" screen, so it's too big. Oh, and the biggie -- it's batter lasts about half as long as the iBook's.

    So it's already not as good a value, even before you start getting into "intangibles" like OS X. Sorry.

    --

    "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

  153. Re:"Apples == expensive" not a stereotype by iroll · · Score: 1

    I did say there are exceptions either way :D See other the other responand for details ;)

    --
    Repetition does not transform a lie into the truth. - FDR
  154. Buy Sun? What's exciting about that?! by SteeldrivingJon · · Score: 1


    Sun's been languishing at $5/share for months.

    What exactly do they have that is exciting?

    My word. The only good thing they might get out of that would be the code to the old Lighthouse Design NeXTSTEP apps that Sun bought and then stuffed under a mattress when, apparently, they realized that Java ports were infeasible.

    Sun's in a definite malaise, with no signs of being able to pull out any time soon. If Apple wants anything of theirs, it would be better to wait. It'll be cheaper to buy at the liquidation, for pennies on the dollar.

    --
    September 2011: Looking for Cocoa/iOS work in Boston area Cocoa Programmer Quincy, MA
  155. I liked my IIc by SteeldrivingJon · · Score: 1


    I even added RAM to it, and a "Zip Chip" accelerator.

    --
    September 2011: Looking for Cocoa/iOS work in Boston area Cocoa Programmer Quincy, MA
  156. Street Fighter II syndrome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The fear of number 3!

  157. PDP?!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    From TFA:

    > The Lisa came equipped with a (blazing fast) 5 MHZ 68000 processor, the same processor used in the PDP line of minicomputers a decade before

    Uh, no. First, PDP was a line of machines (dating all the way back to the PDP-1 around '59 or so) and they had a bunch of different instruction sets. Probably the best known ones are the PDP-11, PDP-8, and the PDP-10 which are all completely different from one another. None of them had a 68000 (which didn't exist at the time, of course!) nor were they particularly similar to it.

    If you squint at it enough the 68000 *sort* of resembles the VAX (especially in addressing modes) but they're still pretty distant.

  158. The powerbooks and Sony? by alphakappa · · Score: 1

    The aricle says that Apple teamed up with Sony to create the Powerbooks. Anyone care to give some details? :-)

    --
    "When the only tool you own is a hammer, every problem begins to resemble a nail." - Abraham Maslow (1908-1970)
    1. Re:The powerbooks and Sony? by klang · · Score: 1

      Yeah, that's true .. at least the very first, the PowerBook 100, was designed by Sony. That little machine was brilliant. It had something that current labtops lag; you could put it in sleep mode, change the battery and wake it up again without loosing anything .. Honestly, I don't know if current PowerBooks can do that, but my current IBM T30 can't..

    2. Re:The powerbooks and Sony? by nordicfrost · · Score: 2, Funny

      Honestly, I don't know if current PowerBooks can do that, but my current IBM T30 can't.

      Yes they can. Someone on /. told a funny story about sitting on a plane and switching the battery in sleep mode. The guy in the next seat saw that and thought it was cool so he'd tried it on his IBM. An IBM that didn't support such things. And lost all his work.

    3. Re:The powerbooks and Sony? by demon · · Score: 1

      Actually yes, you still can; I have a PowerBook Pismo (the Bronze keyboard + FireWire), and I've done exactly that. You have to do the swap within a minute or so of pulling the battery, but you can swap them while the machine is suspended. It's really a handy feature. (Actually, I didn't know how far back that feature went in the history of PowerBooks. Certainly an interesting tidbit.)

      --

      Sam: "That was needlessly cryptic."
      Max: "I'd be peeing my pants if I wore any!"
    4. Re:The powerbooks and Sony? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      PowerBooks at least back to the TiBooks can.

    5. Re:The powerbooks and Sony? by klang · · Score: 1

      about PowerBook 100 the link I should have provided and you probably already found by doing a google search ..

  159. Re:My Top...err, Bottom Ten List...and eight more! by _merlin · · Score: 1

    Apple's support for sync'ing with non-US mobiles is pretty poor. You need 3rd-party stuff for all the i-mode and UMTS handsets.

  160. The shuffle is lame. by autopr0n · · Score: 1

    No display? No one is going to want that. Lots of cheaper devices have displays, so why get a shuffle?

    --
    autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
    1. Re:The shuffle is lame. by Wetware · · Score: 1

      Well, if no one is going to want one, why am I waiting three to four weeks for Apple to fulfill my order?

      And I do want a shuffle because it has no screen. I'm going to take it on workouts at an indoor climbing gym, and I'm going to fall a lot. I won't have to worry about a cracked screen. And without that screen, the Shuffle is going to weigh less too. And just how concerned am I going to be to see the screen's info when I'm hanging by hand and foot 3 meters off the ground?

    2. Re:The shuffle is lame. by ixb9142 · · Score: 1

      The mp3 player that I've been using at the gym for over two years has the option of a screen. I've never used it before. I went to the Apple stop and held and listened to the Shuffle. I'm amazed by it and would love to own it. A woman shopping there was getting put on a waiting list for one and she couldn't wait to get it.

    3. Re:The shuffle is lame. by soft_guy · · Score: 1

      My wife says that. On the other hand, my daughter is begging me to buy her an iPod Shuffle.

      I think this is another case where rational predictions may miss the mark. Conventional wisdom was that the iPod was too expensive in the first place. Conventional wisdom was that the iPod mini would fail. Conventional wisdom is that no one will buy a shuffle. Still, I know tons of people who want one. Our local Apple shop had 200 in stock and sold out of them in less than 2 hours.

      --
      Avoid Missing Ball for High Score
  161. duh by autopr0n · · Score: 1

    PC pirates don't trade serial numbers, they trade ISOs.

    --
    autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
    1. Re:duh by Captain+Splendid · · Score: 1

      You get QT via ISO? ;)

      --
      Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
  162. By high school she was living with him by SteeldrivingJon · · Score: 1


    (if not earlier) and had taken his name:

    "Fronting the band is Lisa Brennan-Jobs, Steve Jobs's teenage daughter, remembered by most of the crowd as the namesake of the ill-fated Lisa computer"

    She apparently went on to Harvard, and possibly Kings College, London.

    Seems to have turned out okay. Harvard doesn't exactly come cheap.

    --
    September 2011: Looking for Cocoa/iOS work in Boston area Cocoa Programmer Quincy, MA
  163. you are an idiot - one mouse button CRITICAL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    you are an idiot, one mouse button is CRITICAL for gui designs that use a single finger on an illuminated flxible display pad.

    you can drag, click, double-click, press, and triple click

    but int he future, a future steve jobs envisioned, these display-computers that unroll onto your desk will NOT have ability to read fingerprints to know WHICH fingure you are using

    mutliple mouse buttons is idiotic

    the NeXT computer 9by steve jobs) also set both mouse buttons by default to mean exactly the same to prevent confusion, but to allow crappy windows to be emulated with its retarded design (often REQUIRING a second button for no valid reason)

    what the hell is a right click?

    idiotic

    in the future the wisdom of simplicity will show that only a single "mouse button" translates to a single fingle on these pads.

    I'd like to give YOU a single finger for your idiocy

    ADB allows you to boot a computer with 8 mice and 3 keyboards and I did once. It also allows you to boot a computer with NO MOUSE or no keybaord attached until after boot, or not at all.

    A crappy pc for about 15 years, NEVER would allow a boot without a keyboard attached. and you could only have one. And you could not attach it after boot.

    Even the mac 128k checked for keyboard reattachement many times per second, instead of once per day like the crappy wintel machines

    ONE BUTTON is the future

    apple points out with a 10,000 dollar product (SHAKE) the idiocy of multiple buttons. the product cannot even function on a 2 button mouse at all!!! it requires 3 buttons in the 3d cad part. 2 mice buttons will not work!

    a proper design before apple baought SHAKE would have been built using one button, for the future, a mouseless future.

    your list of top 10 is wrong, it ignores the actual 10 biggest problems

    and never forget who introduced three full speed PCI-X slots AND high speed graphics first, apple with dual g5

    or who made usb common (apple imac)

    or who introduced multiple monitors

    or firewire

    or SCSI

    or digital audio always

    or the CD-rom revolution

    or volumes larger than 2 terabytes first

    hell, an ancient mac plus from 1985 can be attached to a 250 gigabyte hard drive, and if blocks sizes set large, it can boot from it and use it. (the rom reads only the first 512 bytes of data from each block until os ready to load and use device, though the DRIVER needs to be in the first 8 gigabytes, though it can also be partitioned into 100 partitioned and the old os would show all 100 partitions.

    i booted a macplus with 100 partitions once to prove a point.

    a pc from 1985 or even 1995 couldnt

    pcs are usually 10 years behind apple. windows in 1992 was a sick jock (windows 3.1, and NeXT Step had mutliple monitors and more in 1991).

    copeland died because you could not turn off vm or boot from a locked syquest or cd-rom and it ran not a single desk accessory and millions of other anti-mac problems. it also dropped RAM cieling down from 1.5 gigabytes of ram (the 1995 mac 9500 allowed 1.5 gigabytes (linux and regular windows never reached that for many years). but copeland only allowed 1 gigabytes FOREVER!!!!!!!!!

    1. Re:you are an idiot - one mouse button CRITICAL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      wow. you are like so under-medicated.

    2. Re:you are an idiot - one mouse button CRITICAL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      ONE BUTTON is the future

      One button? Ha! One finger is the future, pointing to the moon like Buddha hand mudra gesture!

      Don't look at the finger!

      **END KOAN**

  164. Re:"Apples == expensive" not a stereotype by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah, all of about $60,000.00 (All IT people involved plus $10/hr estimate on student hours)...huge expense...it's 0.7731958763 percent of the total system cost including the renovations that were done (that's 60,000 divided by 7.76 million if the math is too hard for you). That also includes the $600,000.00 that was paid for the upgrade and trade in for the Xserves. Virginia Tech is a public institution, all the purchase orders are public information and I know they were linked to in previous slashdot posts. You know not of which you speakk and should remain silent.

  165. Also, it might have been for the best by SteeldrivingJon · · Score: 5, Funny


    If the 'horror stories' are true, having an unmellowed Steve Jobs raise a child during its formative years might not have been such a good thing.

    "Daddy, I drew a pony!"
    "Pony? That looks like a lizard. This is shit. You're fired."
    "Daddy, you can't fire me."
    "Then learn to draw."

    --
    September 2011: Looking for Cocoa/iOS work in Boston area Cocoa Programmer Quincy, MA
    1. Re:Also, it might have been for the best by (H)olyGeekboy · · Score: 2, Funny

      That is DROP DEAD hilarious. But you forgot the follow-up where, three months later, he asks the kid's replacement to draw something, but is unhappy with those results as well...

      SJ: "This is utter crap. Where did you go to design school, some inner-city pre-school? Make it look more like a lizard..."

  166. Re:"Apples == expensive" not a stereotype by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    Actually we took out a loan from our foundation for $5.2 million and the Colleg of Engineering, the University IT division, and the University Research division agreed to pay it back over a 5 year period. There was a $400,000 NSF grant that was also added to the pot, but that's it. We bought it ourselves with little to no outside help. It's all public info, you can request it from Richmond if you'd like.

  167. become? by autopr0n · · Score: 1

    Because IBM called their first personal computer a "PC", and everything else has been compatible with it (or at least, compatable with earlier generations of PCs)

    --
    autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
    1. Re:become? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Wow! the autopr0n guy!

      Thanks for the months of great porn services! I was very sorry to hear about your troubles. Here's to you, autopr0n guy!

  168. Bad mouse or stupid users? by jim_v2000 · · Score: 1

    Users were not universally pleased with the new mouse. It was now totally symmetrical, preventing many users from easily telling which way is up. Uh, maybe the top could be the part with the cable coming out of it? The one with the button on it? I for one thought that the iMac mouse wasn't that bad.

    --
    Don't take life so seriously. No one makes it out alive.
    1. Re:Bad mouse or stupid users? by Tim+Browse · · Score: 1

      Yeah, stupid users - that must be it!

      I'm not sure that fits in with the Apple way of thinking :)

      I thought the iMac hockey puck mouse was, to quote a wise man, the suckiest bunch of suck that ever sucked. Sure you can look at the mouse to work out which way is up, but if Microsoft had produced a mouse that required you to look at it whenever you wanted to move it, people would be (quite rightly) bitching like hell.

    2. Re:Bad mouse or stupid users? by jim_v2000 · · Score: 1

      if Microsoft had produced a mouse that required you to look at it whenever you wanted to move it, people would be (quite rightly) bitching like hell.

      Well microsoft didn't, so i'm not bitchin'!

      --
      Don't take life so seriously. No one makes it out alive.
  169. Re:A special flop the Slashdot crowd will apprecia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The "government contract" angle might have had something to do with the birth of A/UX but I really doubt that was the only reason they built it. They continued to improve it for years - later versions were really quite nice. The documentation was also wonderful - probably the best set of printed manuals I've ever received with a UNIX distribution. Oh and running MacOS apps under it actually worked pretty well.

    I definately think they tried to make a go of it. It just didn't work.

    I think what killed it was the bang-for-the-buck problem. The serious UNIX users were running on RISC-based workstations far more powerful than a Mac. The cheapskates were running UNIX on PC's (SCO and its many competitors at the time). There just didn't seem to be a market for a UNIX box that was expensive and slow. Maybe if they had brought A/UX along when they moved to PowerPC it could have finally caught some traction.

    Then there was Apple's 2nd foray into UNIX -- the Apple Network Server back in 1996. It was an Apple machine designed to run IBM's AIX. I think it was available for about 5 minutes before they cancelled the project - one of Apple's most impressive flops.

    They also had mkLinux which was pretty cool (linux with, IIRC, a 1.3 kernel running under Mach on powermacs) I actually used this for quite awhile - I still have a 8100 that can boot it. The project never really went anywhere... I'm not sure if I can call it a "flop" since it was never an official product though.

    Apple's fourth foray into UNIX seems to be working out better for them, though :-)

  170. Huh? by autopr0n · · Score: 1

    You can take a 5.25" floppy drive, plug it into the flopy port on any PC mother board, shove a disk for a program that ran on DOS 1.0 on the 8086 and run it on a PC built today. That's far better then the apple ][

    --
    autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
  171. Re:"Apples == expensive" not a stereotype by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maintenance, perhaps. AppleCare Premium is about $750 per unit. Assembly, no. Virginia Tech had no use for any assembly help.

    As to paying list price, the probability that Virginia Tech ultimately paid list is very close to 0. How do I know? Because we're working with Apple on a cluster of our own right now. Apple, like any company, will provide volume discounts to close the deal.

  172. Re:"Copeland"? LAWYERS made them change SPELLING by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    it was changed by lawyers

    so EITHER is the correct spelling

    lawyers even made them change "sagan" (a registerred trademark) into BHA !!!!!!! (for butt-head astronomer)

    lawyers dictate spellings of internal project names at apple, projects names that are never meant to be used in sales

    lawyers made screen saver Berkely system remove the word 'pollack" from a screen saver but that was a shipping product

    there are 1.1 million lawyers on "the bar" practicing law in the USA, thats one out of every 170 full time jobs

    japan is 500% less lawyers and 500% more engineers

  173. Re:"Apples == expensive" not a stereotype by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Uhhhh....Apple wasn't considered for the machine until AFTER we went to EVERY 64-bit processor vendor and company that made a machine around it. Apple did not want to sell us the machines when we first ordered them and we had to convince them to do so. We took a major depreciation on the machine when it was down for four months and that hurt us greatly (as your comment points out in a very juvenile way), that's why we negotiated with Apple to get the 2.3 GHz Xserves early. It's a Moore's Law and economic thing, perhaps I should draw you a picture?

    I don't recall us ever saying "We don't need ECC!" We were not sure of the impact of cosmic ray activity on the machine. Once we had proved that it worked and discovered (during the coronal mass ejections) how bad things could get for non-ECC RAM we did negotiate a deal with Apple to get Xserves. Apple did not build this machine. At the time we built it, Apple did not have the expertise to build the machine (nor the desire).

    Come take a tour of the facility and see for yourself. Meet the people that built it and ask them instead of lobbing uneducated comments into the air.

  174. Wow. by autopr0n · · Score: 1

    That's a really good way to fuck up your hard drives...

    --
    autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
    1. Re:Wow. by Al-Hala · · Score: 1

      Remember the time frame. Hard Drives were external most of the time in those days. The IIe's didn't even HAVE the option. The 5.25 floppy drives were a couple hundred dollars apiece.

    2. Re:Wow. by Politburo · · Score: 1

      The GP was talking about dropping a 486 packard bell. While such a machine did deserve to be dropped, it still had a HD, and it would have been internal. Remember the time frame.

    3. Re:Wow. by Al-Hala · · Score: 1

      My. Someone's had their "Snarky '0s" this morning :) Although I do concede the point you bring up; although the HD's were optional, and that particular machine may or may not have had one.

  175. Puh-leez by autopr0n · · Score: 1

    The apple ii gs was released in '86. The fact that they manufactured it untill 93 dosn't mean anything. If they're not working on new versions of the hardware, it's dead.

    --
    autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
  176. In his best Dave Letterman voice... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    and the number one Apple flop is:

    Letting Woz get away!!! The man is a genius and could have saved Apple a lot of trouble if they had only listened to him.

  177. Re:"Apples == expensive" not a stereotype by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not when you are the first to try something my friend. They want you to put your money where your mouth is until you prove something, THEN they deal. It's all about risk and we took a big one when we built that system and Apple wasn't going to eat it in the beginning.

  178. William Hawkins?? WTF? by calidoscope · · Score: 1
    In 1978, Steve Jobs and William Hawkins, marketing czar at Apple, decided the time was right to introduce a new generation of computers to replace the Apple II line.

    W. M. Hawkins III usually goes by the name of Trip Hawkins and has been commonly referred to that way since 1967 (if not before).

    Trip said that he came across Appple at the first West Coast Computer Faire in spring 1977. He apparently became disenchanted with the progress with the Lisa by late 1981 early 1982, left Aplle and had sold off most of his Apple stock.

    --
    A Shadeless room is a brighter room.
  179. Re:My Top...err, Bottom Ten List...and eight more! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If the video came up, the "Sad Mac" did show an error code, which is as good as you got from a PC. I think later Macs had sound codes as well. Otherwise I agree completely. To this day nearly every Mac is largely a "ground-up" computer. Apple has only standardized where the PC market has forced them to.

  180. Re:A special flop the Slashdot crowd will apprecia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    what really killed it was PPC - I doubt they had the will to port everything over - prior to that most of the Macs looked enough alike that porting it machine to machine was relatively easy

  181. Workgroup Server 95 ran A/UX by jgerry · · Score: 2, Informative

    I never ran A/UX on a regular desktop Mac, but I used to administer a Mac network at the ad agency I worked at just out of college. We had a Workgroup Server 95, basically a souped-up Quadra 950 designed specifically to run A/UX. It was our file server, connected not via Ethernet, but via oh-so-ungodly-slow AppleTalk, served over plain old twisted-pair phone cables via PhoneNet connectors.

    The server was rock-solid, we never had a single problem with it, whereas our old file servers (running System 7.something I think) would crash all the time. I do wonder what I would have done had it broken, because I sure didn't know much about UNIX in those days (1993-1994).

  182. Re:"Apples == expensive" not a stereotype by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why does the 12" powerbook ship with such a low-spec 1024 screen? Pro machine? More like an iBook with a $1000 paint job.

  183. Re:"Apples == expensive" not a stereotype by cthellis · · Score: 1

    Point is they priced the performance they could expect from a G5 solution against other computer solutions and went that route. Some deals are to be expected on bulk purchases like that, but VT had a definite point as to what they could build for how much. It's down to #7 now, but I think it still holds the definitive #1 point on price/performance.

  184. Re:"Apples == expensive" not a stereotype by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Slightly"? Even the 1.8 G5 is slower than the bottomline 2.8Ghz Dell (Source: Apple.com, SPEC). The Dell also has an AGP/PCI-E slot to rectify the video problem.

    When Apple wills itself into making a "normal" shaped computer, you can start making comparisons. Until then Apple is pure niche/wierd, so there's no point.

  185. Apple Love... by aidbo · · Score: 1

    This may be off-topic, but I have been noticing a trend lately. Now, speaking as a "devout" Mac Fan, I have to say that it seems that recently Slashdot has devoted *many* front page articles to Apple's exploits. While I appreciate most of these, it seems that many of them could have been relegated to apple.slashdot.org without posting them to the main page. I am speaking as a user whose first personal computer was an Apple ][e, and have since gone through many iterations (including system 7.5 on a Performa 5200, blegh)*. Currently I'm on a 20" iMac G5 and am loving it. I must say that I started reading Slashdot for not-necessarily-Apple-related articles, such as the recent post about the shroud of Turin and other interesting posts about human-computer interfaces etc. So... Message to Slashdot editors... please dig deeper, find those articles that will make us think, and please keep the mediocre Apple articles to apple.slashdot.org (which I will check religiously).

    --
    REMEMBER! I was drunk when I posted this...
    1. Re:Apple Love... by OwnedByTwoCats · · Score: 1

      If your first computer was an Apple //e, you would be able to write the name the way it appeared on the machine.
      Apple ][, Apple ][+, Apple //e, Apple II GS, Apple IIc.

      Although some advertisements called it the Apple IIe. That wasn't what was on the top of the machine.

  186. The Smashdot effect has taken over... by al912912 · · Score: 1

    I wonder how many FLOPS can their server do?

  187. Re:A special flop the Slashdot crowd will apprecia by sakusha · · Score: 3, Informative

    ha.. I also have an old 8100 that's loaded with mkLinux, it's sitting about 3 feet from my desk right now, haven't booted it up in years.

    I think what really killed A/UX was MAE, the Mac Application Environment for Unix, which was how you got Mac apps running on A/UX. I think I recall it ran on other platforms like SUN. There was a lot of pressure to release it on more platforms, which Apple definitely did NOT want to do. The last thing Apple ever wanted was to see a Mac GUI running on Intel hardware, and that's where they saw it going.

    Now if you want a REALLY obscure Apple Unix, here's one: SCO Xenix for Lisa. I actually configured and delivered one to a client. He had a custom written accounting package, he got a serial I/O board and hung 4 dumb terminals off the Lisa, and had 5 working terminals (including the Lisa) to do data entry. I just couldn't believe it when I saw the Lisa boot up to a command line and run Unix. After seeing the Lisa's distinctive white screen with black type for so long, seeing white text on a dark Lisa screen was like staring into a black hole.

  188. Apple's biggest failure by jeif1k · · Score: 0

    Although it built the modern Apple, Apple's biggest failure was MacOS 1-9. Why, do you say? Because the company ran it into the ground. Apple had to throw it out and buy a new operating system (NeXTStep) from another company a few years back.

    And the reasons are pretty clear: MacOS didn't start out with a solid technical foundations: no multi-tasking, no memory protection, no object-oriented architecture, just lots and lots of essentially procedural code, largely written in assembly language.

    What people rant and rave about in OS X today was already available in the early 1980's, in more complete and better form: dynamic object-oriented programming, GUI designers, UNIX workstation technology, etc. But Apple chose not to copy that, they did a half-assed job at implementing stuff, creating something that looked nice but didn't have a solid foundation. Of course, they did that so that they could bring a low-priced unit to market a couple of years earlier than everybody else. As a result, Apple grabbed lots of market share early on, got lots of praise for how "innovative" they were, and we were stuck with poor software archtitectures for decades to come (Microsoft copied Apple's mistakes).

    Unlike MacOS, the software that inspired the Macintosh in the 1970's and 1980's, like Smalltalk, has stood the test of time. It is still at the cutting edge of what is possible in software, GUIs, and still sets the standard for easy, powerful, and flexible software development. And even with all the stuff Apple is shipping now (Objective C, Interface Builder, etc.), they still aren't getting close to that.

    1. Re:Apple's biggest failure by Detritus · · Score: 4, Insightful
      And Henry Ford was a jerk for not putting gas turbine engines in the Model T.

      The original Mac ran on a 68000. A slow 16/32-bit processor with no MMU or support for VM. It also had limited memory.

      There is nothing wrong with assembly language or cooperative scheduling, if you are willing to take the time to do it well and in a disciplined manner.

      The Mac team did their best with what was available at a reasonable cost. I'm not going to blame them for decisions that were suboptimal on processors that would not exist for many years.

      If you wanted a Xerox workstation, they were available, at stratospheric prices.

      --
      Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
    2. Re:Apple's biggest failure by jeif1k · · Score: 0

      The Mac team did their best with what was available at a reasonable cost. I'm not going to blame them for decisions that were suboptimal on processors that would not exist for many years.

      You are saying exactly the same thing as I'm saying: Apple cut corners in order to get a cheap product out to market quickly. As a result, they created de-facto standards that the world had to live with for decades to come. You seem to think that it's a good thing that Apple managed to beat everybody to market by a year or two with this strategy, I don't. I think the world would have been better off to wait another year or two for a GUI-based machine with an operating system that was properly architected.

      The original Mac ran on a 68000. A slow 16/32-bit processor with no MMU or support for VM. It also had limited memory.

      Both Smalltalk and UNIX ran fine on even slower, less powerful machines at the time. You could get BSD UNIX on 16bit machines (and I was using that for several years). Both UNIX and Smalltalk were designed so that they scaled up without a hitch as machines became more powerful. AmigaOS ran on similar hardware and was a well-designed, efficient, multi-tasking operating system (although its design was more hardware dependent).

      So, even within the limitations of the hardware they had, the Macintosh team could have done a better job at creating an architecture that would last, instead of a collection of pretty-looking but haphazardly thrown together libraries, which is what they actually released.

      And Henry Ford was a jerk for not putting gas turbine engines in the Model T.

      I don't know a lot about the history of automotive technology, so I can't judge that. I do know a lot about the history of computing, and in this case experienced it first hand (we had some of the first Lisas and Macintoshes), and that's why I call a spade a spade when it comes to Apple.

    3. Re:Apple's biggest failure by dfghjk · · Score: 1

      If there is nothing wrong with assembly language or cooperative scheduling then you would like DOS just fine. The argument is that it's insufficient for a general purpose computing platform, though I don't think it's fair to criticise Apple in the beginning for it. Fact is that they clung to it far, far after it was outdated. MS had full virtualization, memory protection and preemptive multitasking in the late 80's with Windows 386.

      Cooperative scheduling works great for some applications but not for general purpose computing.

    4. Re:Apple's biggest failure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      though I don't think it's fair to criticise Apple in the beginning for it

      Why is it "unfair"? You make it sound like operating systems and high level languages were invented in the 1980's, but they had been around for several decades, running on hardware much less powerful than the Mac. Even simple PDP-11's ran BSD UNIX. Xenix ran half a dozen users on an 8MHz 8086 512k, or on an 8MHz 68000 with 512k, 1-2 years before the Mac was even released.

      Apple didn't need anything even as complex as Xenix or multiple users; they could have easily fit a multitasking single user system into the 128k Mac along-side the toolboxes and all the other stuff that was already in there.

      Microsoft set a lousy standard with DOS, but Apple didn't have to follow that.

    5. Re:Apple's biggest failure by Detritus · · Score: 1
      MS had full virtualization, memory protection and preemptive multitasking in the late 80's with Windows 386.

      Windows 386 ran on the Intel 80386, which had hardware support for those features. Apple didn't have that option with the 68000. They would have had to wait five years for the 68010 and would also had to add a MMU chip. It would have broken all the software written for the 68000 and eliminated backwards compatibility.

      --
      Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
    6. Re:Apple's biggest failure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Okay, jackass, implement those "solid technical foundations" on an 8Mhz 68000 with 128K of RAM and a 400K floppy, yet still have room left for applications.

      Good fucking luck, genius-boy.

      NOTHING used object orientation yet outside of research; certainly no OS development - it was way too slow for the processors of the era. As for fundamental OS concepts, yes, operating systems on mainframes had them right, but you couldn't seriously implement that on a home computer. Did Microsoft? IBM? The Apple II? No, so get off your revisionist 20-20 hindsight high horse.

      Finally, in your most absurd and trollish part, GUI designers? In the early 80's? On what GUI, pray tell? Apple was innovative for having a GUI, and being the first personal computer with one.

    7. Re:Apple's biggest failure by Detritus · · Score: 1
      I used to run V7 UNIX on a PDP-11/23. It may have been a 16-bit CPU but it had an MMU and proper support for supervisor and user modes. It did not support VM, neither did the PDP-11 version of BSD UNIX.

      A bare 68000 did not have the hardware to support a modern operating system. At a minimum, you had to add an MMU, and Motorola was slow in producing add-on chips for the 68000. I used to use some 68000 UNIX systems. They did include an MMU chip. Due to deficiencies in the 68000 regarding instruction continuation and restart, they did not support VM. The C compiler automatically inserted a TST instruction in the function prolog to force a recoverable fault if the stack needed more memory.

      --
      Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
    8. Re:Apple's biggest failure by jeif1k · · Score: 1

      A bare 68000 did not have the hardware to support a modern operating system.

      First of all, Apple had complete freedom in choosing their hardware; if you want to argue that the 68000 was a bad choice, Apple only has themselves to blame for it. They could have used one of the many alternative processors, or they could have added a trivial MMU outside the processor, like everybody else did.

      But, more importantly, Apple wasn't building a multiuser system with a hard disk, they were building a single-user system with a floppy. Such a system doesn't need an MMU or VM or UNIX compatibility. But even without those capabilities, you don't have to throw any considerations of architecture out the window. A plain 68000 was a powerful machine at the time, and you can put a well-architected multi-tasking operating system on it.

      Amiga, for example, demonstrated a high-quality, 32-bit preemptively multitasking operating system with a microkernel architecture on the plain 68000. Unlike MacOS, AmigaOS was a joy to program. Having the two machines side-by-side, two things were crystal clear right away: (1) AmigaOS was lightyears ahead of MacOS technologically, and (2) Apple was going to kill Amiga because Apple had better marketing. You don't have to take my word for it: you can still run the original Amiga and Macintosh as emulators today and see for yourself.

      Whichever way you look at it, Apple cut lots of corners to beat others to market, and we all had to suffer the consequences.

    9. Re:Apple's biggest failure by FredFnord · · Score: 1

      As I recall, some early 68000-based workstations (Apollos, maybe?) had two processors... no, not for multiprocessing: one was running one (or more?) instruction ahead of the other, in place of an MMU.

      Now that's just whacked.

      -fred

      --
      Sign #11 of Slashdot overdose: You see the phrase 'moderate Republican' and you wonder if that would be a +1 or a -1.
    10. Re:Apple's biggest failure by Detritus · · Score: 1

      I've read about that. I believe that was their kludge to work around the broken instruction restart/continuation in the 68000. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motorola_68000 under "Interrupts" for a description.

      --
      Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
    11. Re:Apple's biggest failure by SteeldrivingJon · · Score: 1

      "Whichever way you look at it, Apple cut lots of corners to beat others to market"

      Um, no.

      They were making a product for the market existed, and even then, it *barely* existed.

      The market you're talking about, the market of regular home, business, and education users for $15,000 workstations, did not exist.

      Even NeXT, which probably "cut corners" by your estimation, was just over the price limit of feasibility, in 1989. And that was with underpowered hardware.

      You can click your heels together as much as you want, and wish really hard, but you can't change the economics of technology of the 1980s.

      --
      September 2011: Looking for Cocoa/iOS work in Boston area Cocoa Programmer Quincy, MA
    12. Re:Apple's biggest failure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You needed that hack if you wanted to implement a UNIX-like operating system with virtual memory and memory protection. You did not need that hack if you just wanted to implement a high-quality 32bit multitasking operating system on the 68000.

    13. Re:Apple's biggest failure by jeif1k · · Score: 1

      Um, no. They were making a product for the market existed, and even then, it *barely* existed.

      It was a market that was going to exist whether or not Apple grabbed the lead by putting out a hyped up, heavily marketed, pretty-but-inferior product. In parallel with Macintosh development, there were several other companies that were developing inexpensive GUI-based personal computers. Barely a year after the Macintosh, Amiga started selling a machine with pretty much the same specs and price as the Macintosh, but with hardware graphics acceleration, a preemptively multitasking 32bit operating system, and a really well-designed microkernel. Workstation efforts were in full swing, which yielded graphical workstations that were no more expensive and far more powerful than a Macintosh shortly thereafter.

      I suppose Apple employees genuinely believed the marketing hype of their own companies that they were the salvation for the "rest of us" and that the world came down to Microsoft and Macintosh. But the world only came down to Microsoft and Macintosh after Apple had driven all the other, innovative personal computers and workstation manufacturers out of business.

    14. Re:Apple's biggest failure by ps_inkling · · Score: 1
      Apple didn't have that option with the 68000. They would have had to wait five years for the 68010 and would also had to add a MMU chip.
      The original beige Mac, Mac Plus, and SE were crippled with the 68000 and no MMU option (there were third-party solutions available for the co-processor). The Mac II came with a 68020 and a place to put the MMU (68851) if you bought it. The IIx and above came with a 68030 and made the MMU problem a non-issue.

      If anybody writes an emulator for the Macintosh, it would be nice to emulate MMU and MMU-less original Macintosh II hardware.

      There was no Apple product which ran the 68010.

    15. Re:Apple's biggest failure by bjb · · Score: 1
      First of all, Apple had complete freedom in choosing their hardware; if you want to argue that the 68000 was a bad choice, Apple only has themselves to blame for it. They could have used one of the many alternative processors, or they could have added a trivial MMU outside the processor, like everybody else did.

      The lack of an MMU was a conscious design decision. In fact, Apple DID have an MMU for the 68000 in the Lisa. Cost was the primary reason for not putting it in the Mac, and the engineers felt that as long as programs were well behaved, they could live without it. Of course, the original Mac OS also did not have multitasking, so the MMU was even less of a necessity.

      --
      Never hit your grandmother with a shovel, for it leaves a bad impression on her mind...
  189. It's that time of year, I think by SteeldrivingJon · · Score: 1

    The time around MacWorld Expo has a tendency to be a bit more full o' news than other times of year. There's a rumor run-up beforehand. And the fakes. Then the reports of a site taking things down due to legal threat. Then the MacWorld reports. Then the financial results. Then the reports of the Expo things shipping.

    Soon enough, things will probably quiet down until WWDC, when it'll start again. Then it'll quiet down again for a while.

    --
    September 2011: Looking for Cocoa/iOS work in Boston area Cocoa Programmer Quincy, MA
  190. I love my Tangerine iBook by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When I was looking to upgrade from my PowerBook 145 to a machine that was truely internet capable, I decided on a 1st generation iBook. I figured, if I'm going to get a 1st generation, I want one that turns heads, so I got the Tangerine colored one specifically. Its been working great for years, and I have since upgraded the HD with a 40GB Seagate Momentus, and bumped the RAM to 320MB. I love the color, its so outrageous! :)

  191. Sure is by Namarrgon · · Score: 1
    You're talking about their website, right?

    Time to create article - 3 days
    Time to submit it to /. - 5 minutes

    Time to get a new webserver...

    --
    Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
  192. LCII? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The IIvi was much worse than the LCII. And the IIvm (Performa 600) was crap too. Both made the IIvx (one of Apple's big black eyes) look awesome.

    I dunno why you crap on particular releases (System 8, 7.6). Each was an incremental improvement. All were more or less minor updates, despite the marketing around them.

    ADB was great, it had just advantages over PC keyboard and mouse. First of all, you could connect your mouse to your keyboard. This is something most PCs still can't do (most PC USB keyboards don't have hubs in them). Also, you could turn your mac on from the keyboard, something you can't even do today! That was nice, and again it took PCs years to catch up with that.

    I'll take your word about the LaserWriters. My most notable service issue in those days was the awful Powerbook 5300. It was slow, unreliable, expensive, and they removed ethernet (PB520 series before it had it) right as it became something everyone wanted.
    Next in line would be the monitors. The first Multiple Scan monitors (17 & 20) were okay, but they were completely unservicable. If they went out of adjustment, you had to throw them out. After a screw-up like that, their next act must look better in comparison, right? Nope. The next monitor of note was the Apple 1710av. It was so unreliable that I think fewer than 10% lasted a year. They'd turn colors, have major geometry issues, or just plain fail to turn on. This item alone I think turned Apple into a non-player in the monitor market until the LCDs came along.

    It was spelled Copland, like the composer. Yep, one big screw up.

  193. OS - flop? by idlake · · Score: 1

    At least one of the flops isn't the OS the entire company is based on. Just sayin'.

    That depends on your definition of "flop". Apple looked initially like they were going to own the entire PC business because their GUI was more appealing than other PCs. But then they lost lots of market share with their systems up to OS9, and they were having more and more problems with the software. It got so bad that they dumped the OS and bought themselves a new one.

    You may not consider that a "flop" in the PC world (Microsoft did the same thing), but people actually were capable of designing and implementing operating systems correctly even in the 1980s. Even OS X technologies are technologies (UNIX, Postscript, Objective-C) from around the time when the original Mac was created, so Apple can't plead ignorance.

    1. Re:OS - flop? by Leo+McGarry · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Even OS X technologies are technologies (UNIX, Postscript, Objective-C) from around the time when the original Mac was created

      Wow. That's a pretty wild interpretation. It's kind of like saying that because cars have wheels and we've had wheels since before the beginning of recorded history that cars aren't all that big a deal.

      Let's start at the beginning: Yes, elements of the Mac OS are based on UNIX. But only stuff like the scheduler and the process model. The kernel itself and fundamental things like interprocess communication are based on Mach, not UNIX. And, of course, none of the user experience has anything to do with UNIX.

      Mac OS X really has nothing to do with PostScript. The Quartz 2D drawing model was deliberately designed to be very similar to PDF, making it trivial to translate from PDF to Quartz 2D and back, but that's really where it ends. The window-drawing subsystem -- Quartz Compositor, now Quartz Extreme --has nothing to do with either PDF or PostScript. And, of course, Quartz 2D is just one way of putting lines on the screen. OpenGL is another, and even QuickDraw is still supported, though no new work is being done on it.

      Yes, the Objective-C language dates back quite a ways, but programs written for the Mac have about as little to do with the Objective-C language itself as programs written for Windows have to do with the C language itself. What makes the Mac unique are the Cocoa application programming interfaces which were based on work done at NeXT in the late 80s and early 90s, but which go way, way, way beyond that.

      So you see, to imply that Mac OS X is based on 80s-era technologies is just plain misleading. In fact, Mac OS X was the culmination of decades of work in all sorts of areas. It's not like somebody in Cupertino just decided one day that everything invented since 1988 was crap and that the wave of the future would be retro-innovation. Not at all.

    2. Re:OS - flop? by idlake · · Score: 1

      Let's start at the beginning: Yes, elements of the Mac OS are based on UNIX. But only stuff like the scheduler and the process model. The kernel itself and fundamental things like interprocess communication are based on Mach, not UNIX. And, of course, none of the user experience has anything to do with UNIX.

      Yes, and when do you think Mach was created? In 1985. The BSD APIs that a lot of OS X software actually uses are from the 1970's and early 1980's. The OS X kernel is a combination of a failed OS project from CMU, coupled with a wildly successful open source OS project from Berkeley, both 20 years old.

      Mac OS X really has nothing to do with PostScript. The Quartz 2D drawing model was deliberately designed to be very similar to PDF, making it trivial to translate from PDF to Quartz 2D and back, but that's really where it ends. The window-drawing subsystem -- Quartz Compositor, now Quartz Extreme --has nothing to do with either PDF or PostScript.

      Quartz is a "PDF engine" (Apple's own words), which replaces DisplayPostscript in NeXTStep. It is an moderate improvement over DisplayPostscript, in that it prohibits arbitrary Postscript programmability, but other than that, it has many of the same problems.

      Yes, the Objective-C language dates back quite a ways, but programs written for the Mac have about as little to do with the Objective-C language itself as programs written for Windows have to do with the C language itself.

      Programs you write in 2005 for Cocoa look almost identical to the programs you would have written in the 80's for NeXT. GNUStep, which followed the NeXTStep/OpenStep programming model closely, is also very close to Cocoa.

      It's not like somebody in Cupertino just decided one day that everything invented since 1988 was crap and that the wave of the future would be retro-innovation. Not at all.

      They hired Jobs and whatever software came with him. That happened to be NeXTStep.

      So you see, to imply that Mac OS X is based on 80s-era technologies is just plain misleading.

      I'm not "implying" that, it's a fact: Mac OS X is basically NeXTStep with a few tweaks and theming. For you to imply that OS X is brand new technology is just ridiculous. The OS X kernel, toolkit, programming model, programming language, and technology are all old stuff.

      And the problem with it being retro-technology is that it really has lots of limitations, which Apple is trying to address through clever marketing and naming, rather than technological improvements and innovation.

    3. Re:OS - flop? by Leo+McGarry · · Score: 2, Informative

      Yes, and when do you think Mach was created?

      Mach 3.0 was developed around 1991. XNU, the Mac OS X kernel which evolved from Mach, was created over a period of several years in the late 1990s.

      Quartz is a "PDF engine"

      That's marketing-speak, and it's not really accurate. Quartz 2D is a 2D display-list rendering engine that just happens to be conceptually similar to PDF. PDF is a native file type, and Quartz 2D display lists can be converted to PDF trivially.

      which replaces DisplayPostscript in NeXTStep

      Not really. To the extent that both Display PostScript and Quartz 2D have to do with drawing shapes on the screen, yes. But that's where the similarity ends.

      it has many of the same problems.

      Problems? What problems?

      Programs you write in 2005 for Cocoa look almost identical to the programs you would have written in the 80's for NeXT.

      Um. Yes, to the extent that they use the same syntax: interfaces, implementations, protocols and so on. But other than that, no, completely wrong. In particular, Mac OS X includes something called bindings, which obviate the need for a separate controller object. Model objects are directly bound to view objects, and the runtime itself is responsible for updating one when the other changes. This is fundamentally different from the NeXT programming model, which included three separate objects: a model, a view and an autonomous controller.

      That ignores basic things like NSNetService, advanced text rendering, Web Kit, Search Kit (and soon, Spotlight), Address Book and, as mentioned, Quartz 2D. These and other important core technologies are entirely new in Mac OS X, not legacy tech from NeXT.

      Basically, any Mac OS X program more sophisticated than "Hello, World" is going to be fundamentally different from the same program written for NEXTSTEP.

      GNUStep, which followed the NeXTStep/OpenStep programming model closely, is also very close to Cocoa.

      Completely false. Gnustep makes a decent attempt at creating a copycat implementation of App Kit and Foundation Kit, but that's all. That's only the tiniest part of Cocoa.

      Mac OS X is basically NeXTStep with a few tweaks and theming.

      Analogy time again: "A car is basically a wagon with a few tweaks." (You're completely wrong in every way about themes. Copland was going to include support for themes. Mac OS X doesn't support themes. There are third-party hacks that replace system bitmaps with custom bitmaps, but that's hardly the same thing.)

      For you to imply that OS X is brand new technology is just ridiculous.

      Do us both a favor and educate yourself, okay? Let's run down the list, in the order that they popped into my head.

      Message Framework
      Apple Help
      Address Book
      AppleScript
      Key-Value Coding and data binding
      Serialization (XML hadn't even been invented when NeXT was in business, remember)
      Search Kit (and Spotlight)
      Property Lists
      NSUserDefaults
      the Undo architecture
      Cocoa Drag and Drop
      Quartz 2D
      Distributed Objects
      Cocoa XML-RPC and SOAP APIs
      the various NSURL interfaces
      Web Kit
      Core Audio (soon Core Image, Core Video, Core Data)
      Rendezvous
      CFNetwork
      the printing API
      QuickTime
      Keychain
      Certificate services
      Authorization services
      the entire massive text subsystem

      Every single one of these things is brand new technology developed for Mac OS X (except QuickTime and AppleScript, which are Mac OS X implementations of existing Apple technologies). Even the ones that might seem familiar to you -- like drag and drop --are completely new implementations. Compare implementing drag-and-drop in X11 to "implementing" drag-and-drop in Cocoa. I put "implementing" in quotes because compared to X11, you don't have to do hardly anything at all. While new Apple technologies like Rendezvous and Search Kit and Core Audio are huge, the real power of Cocoa is the ability to do things that are possible under old systems with little or no effort at all. That's where it really shines.

    4. Re:OS - flop? by idlake · · Score: 1

      Well, our notions of "innovation" obviously differ. You think that if Apple hacks in standard more modern functionality (mostly copied from other systems) and performs some maintenance, that's "innovation"; I'm sorry, but I disagree with that.

      The basic fact remains: OS X is fundamentally 1980's technology. While the kernel and the display system are still usable, the worst part of the whole thing is Objective-C, which was a mediocrity even in the 1980's and is thoroughly outdated 20 years later.

      But we don't have to argue about it: I think the market will show that OS X has no chance against either Windows or Linux. In fact, much as I dislike Microsoft software, .NET and its development tools are already orders of magnitude better than the junk Apple is shipping for APIs and development tools.

    5. Re:OS - flop? by Leo+McGarry · · Score: 1

      The basic fact remains: OS X is fundamentally 1980's technology.

      To the extent that we're talking about electrons rattling around, yes. There is no other interpretation under which that could possibly be considered sound, however. .NET and its development tools are already orders of magnitude better than the junk Apple is shipping for APIs and development tools.

      If there were any question in my mind whether you have the foggiest idea what you're talking about, it would be long gone now. Dot net? Surely you must be joking. It's based on Java, for crying out loud. Talk about your technological cul de sacs.

    6. Re:OS - flop? by idlake · · Score: 1

      It's based on Java, for crying out loud.

      <sarcasm>Oh my God, I didn't realize that. If it's based on Java, then, obviously, it must be complete junk.</sarcasm>

      Seriously, how shallow and inane can you Apple fanboys get? Of course, C# is based on Java. Even Java, with all its flaws, is a fairly well designed programming language, and C# fixes most of its problems. Both C# and Java are fairly dull and conservative languages as far as languages go, but at least they get the basics right: memory management, static typing, reflection, and runtime safety.

      Objective C sacrificed all of those in the name of C compatibility. Well, guess what, the tradeoffs Objective C made were questionable even in the 1980's (which is why it was such a dud), and they make no sense whatsoever anymore in 2005.

    7. Re:OS - flop? by Leo+McGarry · · Score: 1

      You know what truly amuses me about this? After first arguing that Mac OS X is obsolete and being taken all the way to school by yours truly, you sat on it for two solid weeks, and the very best you could come up with is to disinter the ancient "Smalltalk" / "Simula" argument. Son, that argument was all used up back when you were still in diapers. Go find something new to feed your desperate need for a sense of superiority.

      Tell you what. Why don't you run along and try to stir up your old "nibs are inferior to XML" argument with somebody who hasn't already grown sick of your unique little blend of ignorance and arrogance.

      Shoo.

  194. Mirror mirror anywhere.... by msim · · Score: 1

    Did anyone actually manage to spin off a mirror before it got /.ed?

    --

    Life is like a box of chocolates, you never know when your gonna get food poisoning.
  195. Re:No Kaleida? .. REDUNDANT refer 10:30PM by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ou were not browsing correctly, and are redundant, because it was mentioned in this post :

    http://apple.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=137930 &c id=11536604

    16 million bucks though is not a lot of money, but then again Kaleida only handled ONE screen and animation could not cross a nonuniform bitdepth screen, unlike the Mac and Quicktime model.

    read other peoples posts and you will learn not to be redundant.

  196. what means "distrubing"?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    /. sure has freaky spelling conventions.

  197. and the apple III by eshefer · · Score: 1

    ah, yes..

    they probably don't think that was a failier, since they, probably, run thier postnuke on one.

  198. ANS by commodoresloat · · Score: 2, Informative
    Those Apple Network Servers were sweet machines. Cool as hell looking; completely flying in the face of Apple's reputation (at the time) for making total wuss-o-rama machines that you basically just plug in and use. Awesome boxes with hotswappable hard drives, fans, and power supplies. If I had time to figure out such things I would love to get ahold of one of these boxes and stick a Mac mini in it.

    I'm sure they didn't sell many of them, but a couple years later people figured out how to install linux and netbsd on them, so I imagine there are a few of them still humming along somewhere. Probably not too many of them still running AIX though :)

    1. Re:ANS by dema · · Score: 1

      I actually own two of those, both fully updated and maxed out in hard drive space. But for the fucking life of me I could never get either to boot to anything except firmware ): They are currently being used as the legs of a table in my parents house. *sigh*

    2. Re:ANS by commodoresloat · · Score: 1

      Damn - that sounds like a badass table!! Though I bet it has a very low WAF (Wife Approval Factor).... Have you tried installing yellow dog linux? I remember seeing stuff a while back about installing it on the ANS; it looked like the least painful way to go. Of course, there are copies of AIX available on ebay and such every so often, so you could always put that on them ....

    3. Re:ANS by dema · · Score: 1

      I gave mklinux, Yellow Dog, and I believe a flavor of BSD a try. All came up short ): I even tried all the crazy rituals like removing the battery for 20 minutes to reset the firmware (or something). I was unable to find any AIX CDs on eBay or elsewhere and I have been checking occasionally with no luck. From what I recall booting the CDs can be just as flakey as the multiple diskettes. I want to revisit them one day, I'd love to have the things humming away in my apartment (:

    4. Re:ANS by FredFnord · · Score: 2, Funny

      If you're actually interested, I managed to get both AIX and Linux running on one of these puppies, actually using it for a web server and file server for a while.

      It is a wholly random procedure, as far as I can tell. I tried what I believe to be an identical set of steps three or four times before it finally actually worked, when trying to get Linux installed.

      And yes, every single time you tried it, you had to take the battery out for an hour or so. In fact, the time I actually got Linux installed, I had left the battery out overnight. (And the machine unplugged.)

      Worth it? Well, I replaced it with a G4 Cube that runs 1/10 as hot, 1/1000 as noisy, three or four times as fast, and much, much prettier. Running Mac OS X Server, natch.

      -fred

      --
      Sign #11 of Slashdot overdose: You see the phrase 'moderate Republican' and you wonder if that would be a +1 or a -1.
  199. 6xxx series by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I was under the impression that the single digit differences indicated who sold the computer; this was the time when Macs were sold through retailers like Sears. Or was it just the 68k Macs?

    Machines in the same number series (ie 465/466/467) were identical except for the software installation which varied depending on who sold it. So when you called support, they could tell what exactly was was shipped on the HD.

  200. I dunno.... by bob670 · · Score: 1

    I found the whole article to be fairly useless, many of those "failures" were recycled in to more popular ideas or were just ahead of their time. As others have stated, it takes less effort to tear down than build up and anyone who doubts Apple's role as key to change in the personal computing realm is living in denial. What's that old saying about breaking a few eggs to make an omelet?

  201. Buried in a field? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The author is rather given to hyperbole. The remaining Lisa computers (rumored to be 2700, although there doesn't seem to be any evidence for the exact number) were gutted and buried in Utah's Logan Landfill - hardly a "field".

    Nor do I believe that 16.7 pounds would be sufficient for the average aircraft tray table to "snap under the weight" - if they were, airlines would be regularly repairing them every time a passenger accidentally leaned their body weight against an extended tray table when avoiding the in-flight service cart.

    1. Re:Buried in a field? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, and where's the Newton on the list? ;)

  202. troll? lolololol by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    troll? lol. he speaks truth and the apple weenies get all bent out of shape.

  203. One technical Apple failure by NeuroManson · · Score: 4, Informative

    The @world Pippin. Basically a PPC 603 Mac, custom designed as a videogame console with net capabilities. in conjunction with Bandai. Barely sold enough in Japan, barely registered a blip in America. Considering it was released in 1995 and surpassed the Playstation in computing and graphical capabilities, it was definately ahead of its time, but miles behind decent marketing.

    http://assembler.roarvgm.com/Apple_Bandai_pippin /a pple_bandai_pippin.html

    --
    Just because you can mod me down, doesn't mean you're right. Shoes for industry!
    1. Re:One technical Apple failure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually Bandai was only one of three or four makers of Pippin, but none of the others had started production before the Pippin was killed by Apple and their licenses was withdrawn.

      They had all commited to use pretty big amounts to market the Pippin.

      The story says that when the press started asking questions about Appels bad performance during a press conference some CIO had to think quick about how he could satisfy the journalists and came up with the idea of killing the Pippin.

    2. Re:One technical Apple failure by dabigpaybackski · · Score: 1

      Unfortunate. I never heard of the Pippin until I heard about it on Slashdot. Considering how much mass media I consumed back then without hearing about a new console, that amounts to some terrible marketing on Apple's part. The only thing worse than an expensive boondoggle is an expensive, halfhearted boondoggle.

      --
      "OH SHIT, THERE'S A HORSE IN THE HOSPITAL!"
    3. Re:One technical Apple failure by nutshell42 · · Score: 1
      Considering it was released in 1995 and surpassed the Playstation in computing and graphical capabilities, it was definately ahead of its time, but miles behind decent marketing.

      Any proof of that? The site that you link to offers nothing but some really bad comparison (the PS: good Pippin: better kind) and no actual game screenshots (at least I haven't found them). I don't really doubt you but I'd like to judge myself based on some meaningful specs and/or screenshots and videos

      --
      Don't think of it as a flame---it's more like an argument that does 3d6 fire damage
    4. Re:One technical Apple failure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Considering it was released in 1995 and surpassed the Playstation in computing and graphical capabilities

      Computing sure. It had a better CPU, memory, CD. But graphics. Man you are totally full of shit. The only better graphics were better FMV and nobody has given a rat's ass about FMV since the SegaCD.

      Honestly how many polygons are on this screen? 10?
      http://oldiz.free.fr/images/course/racingdays -2.jp g

    5. Re:One technical Apple failure by AtariKee · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Next Generation Magazine made many mentions of the Pippin. I could dig out my issues to find out exactly how many, but I do remember quite a few. Then it just sort of disappeared. Considering that it came out at a time that Michael Spindler was running the company, it's not surprising. The Pippin was just another sad example of poor marketing on Apple's part. I do find it interesting that none of the many books about Apple ever mention it...

      --
      "You're getting brutal, Sark. Brutal and needlessly sadistic."
      "Thank you, Master Control"
      -Sark and the MCP
    6. Re:One technical Apple failure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      um - the sega dreamcast's graphics ability kicked the crap out the playstation and it was out at the same time. Heck - look at the bleem! ps games that play on dreamcast - they ALL look way better

    7. Re:One technical Apple failure by adzoox · · Score: 2, Interesting

      A lot of people forget to tie the Pippin in with the great controllers it had. It had something similar to the Nintendo DS as a controll accessory and had an AWESOME controller that had a trackball control - I use it with a USB adapter.

      Another thing that came out of the Pippin development was the set top box. Many sellers on eBay sell this as a prototype and say it didn't do well ... in actuality it did ok - it was a media/navigation/shopping hub placed in hotel rooms at Disney World. That's actually why there's so many of them.

      If anyone reading this knows where I can get the Apple remote for the set top box - lemme know.

      --
      Yell & scream & rant & rave... it's no use... you need a shaaaave ~ Bugs Bunny
    8. Re:One technical Apple failure by gozar · · Score: 1
      Another thing that came out of the Pippin development was the set top box. Many sellers on eBay sell this as a prototype and say it didn't do well ... in actuality it did ok - it was a media/navigation/shopping hub placed in hotel rooms at Disney World. That's actually why there's so many of them.

      I picked up one of these, hoping to do something cool with it. Any ideas/websites on what I can use it for?

      --
      What, me worry?
    9. Re:One technical Apple failure by NeuroManson · · Score: 1

      For one thing, it could be used as a computer. I doubt the PSX was able to do the same.

      The chief was poor title availability, but otherwise the Pippin had some decent graphics in the titles that didn't completely suck.

      The following URL has some reviews and screenshots.

      http://www.pippinworld.co.uk/index.htm

      --
      Just because you can mod me down, doesn't mean you're right. Shoes for industry!
    10. Re:One technical Apple failure by nutshell42 · · Score: 1
      For one thing, it could be used as a computer. I doubt the PSX was able to do the same.

      An Apple][ can be used as a computer, a Gamecube can't. So the Apple is superior? It's a game console the question is how good is it for that purpose.

      And the screenshots looked significantly worse than even the average PS1 game (I've not looked at the Edutainment software). Now there's of course the question what dedicated developers would have been able to do with a few years of experience with the platform but I don't see any evidence that it was better than a PS1

      --
      Don't think of it as a flame---it's more like an argument that does 3d6 fire damage
  204. You don't know how big a flop.... by roshi · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I managed one of those Apple Network Server AIX beasts for while. Not a bad machine, really, served a lab full of mac clients with aplomb...
    But the serial number, I shit you not, was 008.

  205. Re:"Apples == expensive" not a stereotype by wan-fu · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Averatec 3200 series. http://www.averatec.com/notebooks/3200series.htm

    My dad got one for $999 with DVD burner, 80gb HD, etc.

    Not only is this laptop sub-1000$, it specs closely to the Mac and is a much better deal than the 12" iBook. In fact, I bought one myself when I was shopping for a laptop and even w/ the Apple education discount, the Averatec was a better deal.

  206. Re:A special flop the Slashdot crowd will apprecia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    Ah, A/UX. We had an A/UX machine at Taligent. Mark, err, um, Mark Somethingorother (I'm embarrased I can't think he of his name -- he was a really sharp guy) had it in his office. It was the only viable way we could figure out to get the IBM AIX machines to print to the Macintosh printers. It was basically just an extra machine he had in his office, yet the entire company's print queues eventually ended up going through the thing! And it handled it just fine, although, annoyingly, he had to edit some access file every time we added a new machine that wanted to talk to the A/UX machine's lpd. (Nobody could figure out an easy way around that.)

    The funny thing about A/UX was that it was a Unix machine and a Macintosh. If I recall correctly, it could even run Mac apps while in Unix mode. Which was a weird idea for a product, considering that most Mac people hated Unix (antithetical to the ease-of-use ideal) and many Unix people hated Macs (oversimplified and so much not-invented-here syndrome that it was totally not interoperable with anyone else). So, if you have this machine with dual personalities and everyone who likes one hates the other, who are you going to sell it to? It's about as viable as a pro-life porn star running for political office.

    Interesting side note: Commodore pulled a similar move with the Amiga. They ported AT&T SVR4 Unix to the Amiga. They called it Amiga Unix or AMIX. I believe there were rumors in the Amiga community that they did for the exact reason you say Apple did A/UX for: some US government rule about computers not being eligible for certain bids unless the hardware was capable of running Unix. (And, of course, Apple and Amiga being as different as they were, Apple chose BSD while Amiga chose System V...)

  207. Re:A special flop the Slashdot crowd will apprecia by tedrlord · · Score: 1

    I didn't realize A/UX was so obscure. I remember when it first came out. I actually didn't know anything about Unix until I looked into A/UX. I never actually got a copy myself, though I remember really wanting to.

    Of course, my aunt was a manager at Apple up until the mid-nineties, so I was up in the middle of it. I also remember playing with a brand new Mac 128k as a kid, and seeing Kevin Pollak perform at the 1986 Apple Picnic. Man, I loved those picnics.

    --
    [insert witty quote here]
  208. MacDraw, OK! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just did it for you. I dug around, found a copy of MacDraw 0.9 and it appears to run fine under on my Panther G5 iMac (via Classic environment.) Though all I did was draw a bunch of shapes and typed text if that counts as "works." Also dug around and tried some other old (and not so old) apps:

    • MacPaint 1.0 (1983) wouldn't run, "There is not enough memory for MacPaint" if you'll believe that. But MacPaint 2.0 (1987) ran just fine.
    • ResEdit 2.1.3 (1994) works.
    • Arashi 1.1.1 (1994) Got sound, but no video. This saddens me. :(
    • Gunshy 1.2 (1988) Works.
    • StuntCopter 2.0 (1987) Works, but no sound.
    • MacWWW 1.03 1993 aka SAMBA. works
    • NCSA Mosaic 2.0.1 1995 works. Loaded Google. Loaded Yahoo. But took so long trying to load /. I aborted the connection. (and the iMac's fan suddenly quieted down!)

    And Mouse Basics 4.5 would not run, giving the not enough memory error ... so how am I supposed to know which button to click!?

  209. Re:Hands off my Colour Classic you damn dirty ape by monktus · · Score: 1

    Mutant Macs (Cube, 20th Anniversary Mac, Color Classic, Portable)

    My first Mac was a Colour Classic and it's still one of my favourite Apple products. OK, it was basically an LCII in a different box; but it was a box that rocked. Years later I've had offers for it just because the Colour Classic is cool. If only they had given the initial version a bit more power, or released the Colour Classic II worldwide (or better yet a III with an LC040 or whatever), then it could have been much more successful. There are some interesting mods around too (all the way up to G4s).

    --
    Weaseling out of things is important to learn. It's what separates us from the animals... except the weasel."
  210. erm by jann · · Score: 1

    I can't see the newton here.

    Like the lisa, it was revolutionary, like the lisa, it was an amazing flop.

    It took palm to make its concept a success (althoug I still use a filofax).

    But I still want to buy a MacMini

    J

  211. Re:What is a "brown bag release"? by gnu-sucks · · Score: 1

    touching story in sig.

  212. Despite all your nonsense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The OS X designers made OSX work with a 2nd mouse button. So the OS designers at Apple think the 2nd mouse button is a good idea.

    It's just Steve Jobs who "thinks different".

    More to the point, scroll wheels are critical these days. You don't think so now, but if Apple were to offer it, you'd think it was a good idea.

    You're simultaneously silly and scary.

    1. Re:Despite all your nonsense by Leo+McGarry · · Score: 1

      The OS X designers made OSX work with a 2nd mouse button. So the OS designers at Apple think the 2nd mouse button is a good idea.

      There's a really kick-ass word to describe what you did just there. Seriously, it rocks. Makes you sound incredibly sophisticated at parties. Makes chicks weak in the knees.

      The term is "non sequitur."

      Google it. You might learn something.

  213. Re:My Top...err, Bottom Ten List...and eight more! by dabigpaybackski · · Score: 1
    17. Black box POSTing...when you turn on a Mac, you shouldn't hear the sound of broken glass if it's gone south for the winter. Error beeps, some explanation of what just went wrong, anything would've been better than that hideous broken glass sound.

    Be patient. You're disappointed because you hit the reset button before it plays the Stone Cold Steve Austin theme music.

    --
    "OH SHIT, THERE'S A HORSE IN THE HOSPITAL!"
  214. I agree by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Don't let anyone here tell you differently... OS 9 was less stable that Windows 95. It really was horrible. Programs would install stuff and all of the sudden your printers wouldn't work. I re-installed OS 9 fresh at least 5 times on an iMac DV for the kids because one of their kiddy programs kept wiping out the printer.

    Flash in IE on the Mac OS 9 will lock the machine up.

    Its really horrible and to my way of thinking ruined Apple. OS 8 was just as bad, but I think I'd moved away from the Mac for a while, so I wasn't aware of it.

    OS X finally delivers what they had in AUX, only 10 years later.

  215. Stupid? by dustmite · · Score: 1

    Stupid? I wonder why everyone does it then. The PC world is the same (e.g. I recently bought a Centrino laptop at about the same time Banias came out --- everyone was trying hard to clear Centrino stock). It's not so much to artificially create demand, but to prevent the old models and the new models from competing with one another, which if you're not careful can put downward price pressure on BOTH the old and new models.

  216. Violence applied to computers by nordicfrost · · Score: 1

    Wow... I had the same experience in a place I worked. I was servicing an AST (God, i HATE and LOATHE AST and Acer) computer that got wierd General protection failures. When the machine was on for a while, it would fail. But no matter what component I tested, they all worked perfectly. Video card, memory, motherboard, RAM, network card, powersupply, audio card, CPU, all were in perfect working order. They just wouldn't work together.

    So I explained the problemto my boss and he pondered about it for a sec before turning the computer off and WHAMMO! hitting it on the top just above the PCI card rack. "Now, turn it on and it will be OK" he said. Sure enough, the computer booted and remained OK. Problem? The AST case was so poorly designed, the heat from the CPU and harddrives would bent the motherboard downwards, thus unseating the main bus connector of the horizontally installed PCI cards. A whack to the top of the box shoved the connector in its right place for a couple of months more

    1. Re:Violence applied to computers by phpsocialclub · · Score: 1

      There was a mac in the computer lab of my high school that would lock up untill you whacked it on top. It was one of those pizza box shapped machines, in the os 8 days.

      It was pretty funny because people would be freaking out because their paper was lost or something and you could just pull a "Fonzi" on it and it would come back to life.

      Thank god I do not have to smack my dual g5,

  217. outsourcing by jeif1k · · Score: 1

    AFAIK, Apple doesn't have much manufacturing anymore, they are outsourcing manufacturing to contract manufacturers in Taiwan and other places, the same companies that also make desktops and laptops for PC manufacturers.

    Does anybody know whether there are still any Apple manufacturing facilities left at all? Do they still actually produce any hardware themselves?

  218. Ever heard of Morgan? by DABANSHEE · · Score: 1

    They make a dozen cars a month yet make greater annual profits than at least 3 car makers with billion dollar turnovers.

    Sure economies of scale is nice, but it's pretty pointless for companies like Mitsibishi if a company like Morgan can make a greater annual profit & return better dividends to their owners.

    Of course it's not that simple, many large stockholders of large conglomerates make their private companies subcontractors of the conglomerates & get their returns that way while the conglomerate makes a 'on payer' loss for tax purposes, but you know what I mean - size is nothing if it doesn't equal profits.

  219. Just to clarify ... by dustmite · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This manipulates the supply side, not the demand side, as was implied. They're not "creating demand" they're "preventing a supply spike" caused by old and new models overlapping. You can't "create demand" by manipulating supply, you create demand by e.g. doing more marketing. Most shoppers aren't after a particular model, they just want a X or a Y, and could go either way while shopping depending on how they feel that day, which means X and Y effectively compete. By clearing stock of X before introducing Y you lower the supply and variety of choice.

    Of course, by clearing stock totally before introducing a new product, and leaving a gap inbetween, with the hopes that those shopping during the gap will then wait until Y because they can't buy an X, is unwise because that shopper is more likely to just use that gap to switch to a competitor's product Z .. this is especially true in the PC market, where there is mostly competition amongst component manufacturers, e.g. ATI vs NVIDIA, Seagate vs Western Digital, and so on. For an Apple user it might mean buying a PC.

    1. Re:Just to clarify ... by RichN · · Score: 1
      For an Apple user it might mean buying a PC.

      Heh heh heh! That was a good one... Thanks!

      Seriously though, now that I've been using OSX, I'll never willingly go back to a PC. (If my employer forces me, well...)

      --

      Rich

    2. Re:Just to clarify ... by Kjella · · Score: 1

      Of course, by clearing stock totally before introducing a new product, and leaving a gap inbetween, with the hopes that those shopping during the gap will then wait until Y because they can't buy an X, is unwise because that shopper is more likely to just use that gap to switch to a competitor's product Z

      Well, it all boils down to "can you wait?" My distinct impression is that the PC market is far more driven by specific events while the supply side (components) is quite continous. (new OS release, new FPS game) than the Mac world. The Mac world is far more cyclic and "generational", with new Mac models being the big drool-factor, and is also about the only time old Macs become "obsolete".

      Unless there was a significant spike in your personal needs (new job, broke down, new DV cam, whatever) I don't think Apple lost much on that gap. Their niche is rather special that way, there are many niche products whose market would "reintegrate" with the masses if there was a gap in supply, and quite possibly never return. I'm sure it wasn't without pain (after all, you can't introduce any new users to a Mac) but it was hardly the fatal blow.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    3. Re:Just to clarify ... by dustmite · · Score: 1

      True, that was a bit ludicrous :)

  220. Follow the Money by meehawl · · Score: 1

    the only measure of success for a public corporation is whether it makes money.

    Actually, it's all about returns for shareowners. And barring short-lived run-ups in Apple's stock that generally last 12-18 months, owning Apple stock over the past 25 years has been one of the consistently worst long major tech positions you can find. But it's a great stock to short on the way down! Actually, given inflation, shorting on the way down is the only way you could have made a decent return on Apple!

    --

    Da Blog
    1. Re:Follow the Money by ltbarcly · · Score: 1

      This is garbage. By choosing the proper time interval you can make virtually any company beat any other company you like. For example:

      Apple beats Dell: http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=AAPL&t=2y&l=off&z= m&q=l&c=Dell

      Apple beats Microsoft: http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=AAPL&t=2y&l=off&z= m&q=l&c=msft

      Apple beats GE: http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=AAPL&t=2y&l=off&z= m&q=l&c=GE

      Or to really prove the point:
      Lucent beats Dell!!: http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=LU&t=2y&l=on&z=m&q =l&c=dell

      So this is just a bunch of crap. Besides, since when is stock price a valid indicator of the quality of a company's product (SCO)?

      That being said, apples stock has certainly failed to perform. BUT if you (smart guy) predicted the performance of Dell you wouldn't be posting to slashdot, you would be lounging with beautiful women on your 100 foot yacht. Anybody can make money on the stock market, on paper, once they know how it already performed.

    2. Re:Follow the Money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am posting from the enclosed deck of my 6500 sq ft Aspen Lodge and I think Apple stinks.

      You chose limited time slices. Compare Apple against even the DJIA average over the last couple of decades and you see a trend of mediocrity.

  221. Amiga Forever!?! by meehawl · · Score: 2, Funny

    Market share is just not that important.

    If you really believe that then you and the Amiga people have a lot to talk about...

    --

    Da Blog
    1. Re:Amiga Forever!?! by Moofie · · Score: 1

      It's not irrelevant, it's just not that important.

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
  222. Volume by meehawl · · Score: 1

    Does the quality of a product determine it's company's size?

    Many people try to classify Apple as a luxury niche producer: a Ferrari, a Morgan. This is simple not true; Apple always was a volume vendor (in fact, once upon a time it was the world's largest PC volume vendor). It is still trying to be a volume vendor. In that kind of market, being late, failing to adequately fill your sales channels, and pissing off your dedicated channel vendors is a recipe for disaster. Apple has done all that.

    the year-old article

    It's predictions of the near-future were a little off. But its analysis of the past 25 years was pretty spot on. You know by lazily discounting the main thesis of an argument because of some speculative minor points is quite regressive. Apple has had minor run-ups in its fortunes before - they rarely last more than 12-18 months...

    --

    Da Blog
    1. Re:Volume by nmk · · Score: 1

      12-18 months?? What the fuck are you talking about. Apple has been consistently profitable for the last five or six years. From being almost bankrupt they have, over the last half decade, built up a cash reserve of five billion dollars. They are also completely debt free. The interesting thing is that they achieved most of this before the massive success of the iPod. I would hardly call this a minor run-up in their fortunes.

      As far as market share is concerned, they are doing very well in certain markets. Apple is still in a dominant position in professional graphics. They have also, over the last few years, gained a substantial foothold in the Video and Audio production markets some of the best software available on the market. Due the the popularity of OS X, the xserve is the fastest growing server platform in the world.

      You should either check your facts or not bother posting.

    2. Re:Volume by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      FUCK OFF APPLE FANBOI

    3. Re:Volume by dr.badass · · Score: 1

      Many people try to classify Apple as a luxury niche producer: a Ferrari, a Morgan.

      I am not one of them. I'm arguing that it's possible for a company to be successful without selling the most widgets. Is HP dying because they don't sell as many PCs as Dell? A profitable company is a profitable company.

      I was also responding to the troll-ish nature of the article, which implied that Apple's products must be inferior because Apple is a smaller company than Dell. Even if you think Apple's products suck, this is a patently ridiculous conclusion.

      It's predictions of the near-future were a little off.

      No, they were a lot off, just like a lot of articles about Apple have been in the last 25 years. I'm not suggesting that Apple is indefeatable, but it's not a given, as the article so calmly suggests.

      You know by lazily discounting the main thesis of an argument because of some speculative minor points is quite regressive.

      The main argument is that Apple is doomed to failure because they aren't more like other companies. To back this up the author cites very old failures (the Mac LC!?), and concludes that this will lead to the failure of Apple's newer ventures. It didn't (Did "Bob" ruin Microsoft?), and frankly, the article's conclusions have been proven wrong.

      Apple has had minor run-ups in its fortunes before - they rarely last more than 12-18 months...

      Right...which is why they've been around for 25+ years.

      --
      Don't become a regular here -- you will become retarded.
    4. Re:Volume by soft_guy · · Score: 1

      Even when Apple was "almost bancrupt", they were sitting on $1 Billion + cash reserve and no debt. Before they started having problems they had a reserve of like $4 Billion. It is unsurprising that they have increased their cash position to $5 billion given that the company has been very well managed by Mr. Jobs.

      Imagine sitting down to finish a chess game for someone else. You could easily defeat your opponent in a new game, except that in the game you are finishing, you are already behind - by a lot.

      In those situations, you are willing to play more daringly than normal. You pull out all the stops. Still, it takes a long time to turn the game around if you are able to do it at all. You are trying to postpone defeat as long as possible and maybe regain some lost ground.

      So, that's what I think Jobs has been doing at Apple since he came back. He has pretty much done everything perfectly since then. He has played a good game and maximized Apple's resources to first keep them in business, second keep them from being bought, and third get to the point where they can start having hit products and build marketshare again. Yes, they were in serious trouble. In fact, I think Apple came as close to not surviving as a company can come. If it hadn't been for the cult following, they would not have made it. Some Mac users who were willing to buy overpriced, underpowered machines running OS 7/8 instead of microkernel based Windows alternatives really made the difference. If Windows 2000 had come out 2 years earlier, I can't see how Apple could have stayed in business.

      But, they pulled it out. And today a modern Macintosh running MacOS X is a rock solid, nice computer that has a decent software library. Carbon worked. Apps were ported. Mr. Ive created industrial designs that helped get people to look at a Mac and helped get the press to write about something related to Apple that wasn't a speculation on when they were going out of business.

      I'm completely amazed at how well managed Apple has become as a company and how they have pulled out all the stops to stay alive. And its really nice to see the market share numbers up for pretty much the first time ever!

      I love my Mac and I love Apple. I'm not interested in "converting" people to become Mac users myself. And I understand the criticisms people have about Apple. They have certainly done a lot of things that made me angry over the years and wince at decisions they were making - right up until Jobs took over. And then they canceled the Newton which really hurt me badly because I was making my living writing software for the Newton at the time. But they were willing to explain the decision about the Newton and they promised that things would be different - and they are. The difference between Apple of 1995 and Apple today is so huge. I trust what Apple tells me today. I did not trust Apple in 1995 (although I could easily get inside information about what they were going to do that isn't available today.)

      --
      Avoid Missing Ball for High Score
  223. slashdotted ESP experiment by tinkerton · · Score: 1

    So you have this website , and they say it looks ok. Then you go watch and nothing there. Some people call this the slashdot effect.

    Someone is bending spoons with sheer brain power. But each time you look it does not work, and he says "It sometimes fails it when you're slashdotting me".

    Some experts will call slashdotting real. I have my own opinion.

  224. The Amiga is not dead. by master_p · · Score: 1

    Its ...dying! :)

  225. Jean-Louis Gassee and emulation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In the mentions of greats, no one's talked about Jean-Louis Gassee or Apple's ability to manage working on multiple hardware platforms.

    Jean-Louis made the first modular macs which gave Apple new life against the PC clones, and he's largely responsible for the great engineering in the middle years. Unfortunately, people after him had the big vision but not the skills to force progress, so Pink became Taligent became Hoops and some internationalization code at IBM, and Copeland was one long exercise in chilling out on the cool new campus.

    wrt emulation, A/UX was worlds ahead of VMWare, et al, and Apple managed the 68K->PPC transition with emulation and a hardware abstraction layer.

    All in all, a lot of great engineering went into meeting the ridiculous requirements of the marketeers.

    I worked on everything from Copeland back to MacWrite, but my first job was office support for the guys buying memory for the Mac Plus, jetting down to Mexico for shady deals as memory went throught the roof. That cost them a couple quarters.

    You have to hit on all cylinders to make it!

  226. you suck. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...it isn't as though it's not as if apple hasn't not failed to not take some lumps.

    Why can't people just write clearly?
    you could have just said 'but Apple has taken its lumps over the years, as well.' or something else without the 'i don't necessarily disagree with you' multiple negatives.

    1. Re:you suck. by Jeld · · Score: 1

      If everyone understands you in the same way, where is the fun in that?

      --

      Everybody Lies. But it doesn't matter since nobody listens.

    2. Re:you suck. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not unsure of the non-untruth of your insight.

  227. A possible solution to slashdotting. by master_p · · Score: 1

    The site the article has is out of order for maintenance. It has been 'slashdotted'. While there are generous posters that took the time to post the whole article in a reply, there is another possible solution: when one is to submit a story, there should be an optional URL of a web page that would be included, as static HTML, under the topic text (not in the Slashdot frontpage). This would have some advantages:

    1) it would limit the /. effect, at least for the most important material.

    2) many posters who don't read the articles would actually have a look the main article was included right after the topic text.

    3) there would be no need to post the story, possibly avoiding 'karma whoring'.

    4) the posted article would contain the pictures of the original; right now replies can't have pictures (I think), only links to pictures.

  228. Re:What is a "brown bag release"? by tomhudson · · Score: 1

    Thanks. He was a great dog.

  229. Re:My Top...err, Bottom Ten List...and eight more! by lisaparratt · · Score: 1

    Except that most "non-US" mobiles are GSM, and sync fine.

  230. Word 6? MS saw what it could get away with by ianscot · · Score: 1
    I've always thought of Word 6 as the moment when Microsoft realized what it could pass off on the American corporate world. That was the moment when they started doing stuff like changing the way rulers worked in tables for no reason at all other than to sell another incremental release in their Office apps.

    Word 5.1a or so was just about the point at which their releases stopped being useful upgrades and started being calculated mostly to control the market as part of the Office suite. I don't think I've ever run across anyone who used Word in a way 5.1a couldn't have handled, in any significant sense, but MS keeps on selling their "change for change's sake" upgrade path.

    So I guess I'm with you. This wasn't Apple's bad, it was the lip of the MS cliff.

    --
    "Fundamentalism" isn't about divine morality. It's about human authority.
    1. Re:Word 6? MS saw what it could get away with by javaxman · · Score: 1
      I know of at least one company which used MS Word 5.1 almost exlusively until... well, until Office 2000 came out.

      Smart folks.

  231. Re:Apple flops? No Newton? by spoonyfork · · Score: 1

    Gee, what about the Newton? Was that such a big flop that people don't even remember it to make the list?

    I agree the Newton was missing from the list (flopped because of high price and too large). Today it would be silly if they couldn't overcome those issues. Aside from the original price and size, the unit was functional and fun. Truthfully, I would rather have a modern Newton PDA rather than a Microsoft or Palm one. These days they are all bunch of crap. If Apple could produce the iPod of PDAs they'd probably sell well. I know I'd buy one. Hopefully they're cooking something up in the labs.

    --
    Speak truth to power.
  232. ADB cable = SVHS cable by LanMan04 · · Score: 1

    If you happen to have a female-female ADB (Apple Desktop Bus) cable, use it for you SVHS connection on your TV! or vice versa

    --
    With the first link, the chain is forged.
  233. One word, Jagubox by xeno-cat · · Score: 2, Interesting

    That was the place to go for all sorts of A/UX help. It was a sad day when it went offline, though it seems a mirror is still available.

    http://mirror.apple.com/mirrors/jagubox.gsfc.nas a. gov/pub/aux/

    I still have my A/UX 3.0 CD's with the final 3.x update CD's, A/UX user guide and X manuals as well. I keep a Quadra 700 around in case I ever get nostalgic.

    A/UX is the UNIX I ran my first Apache server on. I bought the A/UX CD's off of Usenet's AUX channel. I think Apache still has A/UX compiler diretives in it's source code, have'nt checked lately.

    Apple created an amazing flavor of Unix with A/UX. It ran OS 7.1 as a process, integrated some nice BSD type features into it's SVR2 core and then added a bunch of Apple extras that made administration quite handy.

    I think A/UX was reflective of something happening in Apple, mostly lead by Jobs. At the time Apple had worked with Sun on developing a Unix with an Apple UI, but Apple backed out. However, when Steve jobs was forced out of Apple he went and started NeXT, basicaly a Unixy Mac. Then Steve comes back to Apple and we have OSX. Not exactly sure what it all means but Apple spent a long time with what was basicaly OS 7 while Steve Jobs had become a Unix head. Apple had an opportunity to really do something special with A/UX but several factors got in their way, mainly themselves and AT&T licensing I'm sure. BSD got them out of the licensing bind.

    Kind Regards

    --
    "A few great minds are enough to endow humanity with monstrous power, but a few great hearts are not enough to make us w
    1. Re:One word, Jagubox by hey+hey+hey · · Score: 2, Informative
      Apple created an amazing flavor of Unix with A/UX.

      Apple bought an amazing flavor of Unix. The actual work was done by Unisoft, a Unix porting house way back in the day (I was the engineer in charge). FWIW, the project was code named "Pigs in Space".

      Sadly, they never told us (or anyone else) that the project was just for a checkbox item. Lots of third parties wanted the system to succeed.

  234. Re: initial NeXT market by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The NeXT cube was originally designed for the academic environment. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NeXT

  235. Re:A special flop the Slashdot crowd will apprecia by demon · · Score: 2, Informative

    Actually, A/UX _was_ SysV UNIX. OS X is a BSD derivative, but apparently back in the day that A/UX was an idea about to materialize, everyone thought SysV was the way to go...

    --

    Sam: "That was needlessly cryptic."
    Max: "I'd be peeing my pants if I wore any!"
  236. Re:A special flop the Slashdot crowd will apprecia by Undertaker43017 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    A/UX was the first commerical Unix for the Mac.

    When I started at VT in the '85, one of the requirements for incoming CS majors was a Mac XL (rebranded Lisa 2), with a version of SysV.

    That was a HUGE fiasco, the machine was cancelled before VT even started giving them out. So our class was stuck with this huge paperweight, that might run Mac SW or might not, MacWorks was good, but not perfect.

  237. Re:Apple ///, anyone?...I personally own 2, thanks by TheAwkmaster · · Score: 1

    Yes, reliability was a problem, but Business BASIC and VisiCalc made it quite useful at the company I worked for. The Apple II emulator filled in many of the gaps in the available III software spectrum. P.S. I bought both of mine _after_ I left the company that used them.

  238. Stop slashdoting this site... by arkanoid · · Score: 1

    I want to read de article.

    1. Re:Stop slashdoting this site... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah stop yer lookin'

  239. Apple /// by fatgeekuk · · Score: 1

    Ok,

    In the MAC line there was...

    Mac
    Mac II ...?

    There was NEVER a MAC III, and why? because they had VOWED that after the MONUMENTAL failure of the Apple /// they would never have a computer with that number...

    so they went on to the Quadra line.

    1. Re:Apple /// by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      LC III

  240. an old, tired rant by dfghjk · · Score: 1

    This is an old, tired rant that has proven itself to be completely unimportant. Performance disadvantages of the instruction set have been largely overcome technically and if software compatibility was as unimportant as you say then x86 would disappear. I say this having decades of x86 assembly experience myself.

    What you say about Athlon 64 is hogwash. Care to offer evidence of your 99% speed advantage claim? AMD didn't break binary compatibility either.

    1. Re:an old, tired rant by hey! · · Score: 1

      This is an old, tired rant that has proven itself to be completely unimportant. Performance disadvantages of the instruction set have been largely overcome technically

      True, true. It goes to show, I suppose, that in the end you can polish a turd.

      It does make you wonder about opportunity costs, though.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    2. Re:an old, tired rant by Moraelin · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I didn't say the Athlon 64 is 99% faster. I said that probably 99% _of_ the performance gain _between_ 32 bit programs and 64 bit programs, on an A64, is because of the extra registers. And yes, the performance difference between 32 bit and 64 bit is there, and proven by a ton of benchmarks already.

      So I'll say the opposite: I keep hearing the "old, tired rant" that performance doesn't matter, architecture doesn't matter, even developper or code quality doesn't matter. Let's just make a turd and let the compiler handle it.

      Nope, sorry. Just isn't true. The performance difference in the A64's case _is_ there. That's what 64 bit vs 32 bit benchmarks measure there: the speed with and without the extra registers.

      You may notice how for any other CPU, 64 bit mode is actually _slower_. E.g., the UltraSparc comes to mind. In case you wondered why most applications on a shiny new UltraSparc machine are still 32 bit. On it a 32 bit program actually runs measurably faster than the same program compiled as a 64 bit program.

      Because when you have the exact same instructions, and the exact same number of the registers, transferring more data slows you down.

      But not the A64. There 64 bit mode is actually faster. What's different? Twice the registers, that's what's different.

      Compilers have come a long way, yes. They can do much better with a bad ISA than 10 years ago, yes. Indeed. And you can even take the tired old argument that "bah, for Word and Internet explorer they don't need a faster CPU anyway."

      But completely polish a turd into a gold nugget, no, they can't. They can bring it sorta close enough, but no more.

      --
      A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
  241. Re:Apple flops? No Newton? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I remember the Newton because of three simple words: I am gay. No, that's not it. Eat up Martha.

  242. Apple's Biggest Flop: Losing Nerd Mindshare in 86' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Apple's biggest problem, after the release of their new Macintosh computer, was a failure to court software developers. While Microsoft was giving away free software development toolkits and having conferences everwhere to get developers on-board, Apple was inactive. Microsoft won the operating system war in '86 by capturing the mindshare of developers.

  243. Re:"Apples == expensive" not a stereotype by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Let me guess, it even has two mouse buttons!

  244. IMHO the top flop was by beforewisdom · · Score: 1
    Apple's top flop...........the one to their everlasting regret.......was letting the early PCs produced by IBM undercut them in price.

    If it wasn't for that Apple would be where microsoft is now.

  245. NextStep DOES have Mac application compatibility by johnthorensen · · Score: 1

    ...in the form of OS X :)

    -JT

  246. I noticed... by catdevnull · · Score: 1

    Not many of these flops have been recent. The most recent of which were the funky iMacs and the crappy KB & Mouse. It seems that Apple's learned quite a bit from past mistakes. We'll see if that stays true for the iPod Shuffle and the Mac Mini.

    I don't think it was fair to put MS Word 6.0 on that list, though. Afterall, Apple didn't develop it, MS did. BUT, Apple should have had some say in the quality control or excercised that voice if they had it. And, yes, it was a big giant unpolished turd. I still have nightmares about it (I was doing tech support as an undergraduate when it came out--I hold it responsible for lost papers and premature gray hair).

    --

    I might know what I'm talkin' about, but then again, this is Slashdot...
  247. Corporate sales by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The LISA Mac XL was pushed in corporate market.
    Failure to follow through on promised applications and eventual abandonment soured Apple for corporate until many of the guys who had not been fired for recommending LISA/MacXL retired.

  248. Corrections by mmkkbb · · Score: 1

    The Macintosh TV was first envisioned as a tenth anniversary Mac, but it was eventually cancelled. After the unexpected success of the Color Classic, John Sculley requested that a machine comparable to the Color Classic be made with a CD ROM drive and a 14 Trinitron CRT. The logic card was a slightly modified IIvx, Apple's midrange 68030 machine. The Macintosh TV was released on October 23, 1993, shortly after being resurrected.

    This isn't quite right. The Mac TV was based on the LC 520, which was only sold in the academic market. This machine actually achieved price parity with an equivalent Windows box (after educational discount).

    Microsoft didn't just resell copies of MS Word 5.1. You actually had to buy Word 6, then DOWNgrade (for a fee) to Word 5.1!

    --
    -mkb
  249. Mod up -- the 5300 had a few diff't sides by ianscot · · Score: 1
    The PB5300 was truly a spectacular flameout.

    Not only was the product itself of questionable quality -- a big anchor around Apple's service contract system -- but the thing was so late claiming space in the laptop market that, just as portables really took off, Apple lost what had been a huge advantage in that market niche.

    Up until around the time when they broke ground on "docks" with their Duo line, Apple had the best laptops out there. There was a long gap where they just didn't have any models, and they lost market share in a huge way while all they had was 68040 chip models to sell.

    Of all the "supply chain"-style problems Apple's ever had, this may have been the most damaging on a high level. They were market leaders, and then they fell on their faces. Then the 5300 came in and it was plain shoddy. Those were bad times.

    --
    "Fundamentalism" isn't about divine morality. It's about human authority.
  250. Apple's biggest flops by evanski · · Score: 1

    As The Joker ( Jack Nicholson) once said: " ya gotta crack some eggs in order to make an omlette"

  251. Re:"Apples == expensive" not a stereotype by Isbiten · · Score: 1

    But does it run OS X natively? If not it's apples to oranges (no pun intended)

    --
    I fought the corporate America, and the corporate America bought the law.
  252. The Apple Set Top Box by adzoox · · Score: 1

    Well, I have some of the original content for Disney World where you can navigate to different shops and find your way around the park. The interactive demos are written with quicktime.

    Of course, back up the hard drive, and load Mac OS 7.6.1 on it and use it like a Quadra 610 - which is basically what it is.

    --
    Yell & scream & rant & rave... it's no use... you need a shaaaave ~ Bugs Bunny
  253. Most recent flop: 32MB VRAM Mini!!!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    nt

  254. Taking Risks by Tassach · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Apple is a company that takes risks. They build products based on what their engineers and designers come up with, not with what the marketroids and focus groups say will sell.

    Sometimes, as with the iPod, they come up with the right product at the right time and win big. However, sometimes they get there too early: the Newton was ahead of it's time and much better than the other first generation PDAs, but people just weren't ready to buy them yet.

    --
    Why is it that the proponents of "one nation under God" are so eager to get rid of "liberty and justice for all"?
    1. Re:Taking Risks by skeptictank · · Score: 1

      The Newton cost $1000 dollars, it was to large to put in your pocket and the handwriting recognition system didn't work. Sometimes products fail just because they suck.

    2. Re:Taking Risks by vought · · Score: 1

      Apple is a company that takes risks. They build products based on what their engineers and designers come up with, not with what the marketroids and focus groups say will sell.


      This may have been true during certain times, but not when I worked there. Dirtiest word at Apple during 1996-97?


      Per-for-ma.



      Ghetto Macs with great software. What a disappointment, and one of the purest marketing-driven products I've ever seen.

      There was no new engineering in Performa; just cost-reduction, feature fitment and rolling stuff out as quickly as possible. (In all fairness, they switched to "as well as possible" in 1997 and made a few great machines.)

      Apple learned a srong and powerful lesson from Performa, and the Mini is in many ways the penultimate expression of the Performa idea, but without the ghettoization and stigma caused by the Performa brand.

      The Mini is as much a Macintosh as any Performa ever was and more; it is a complete Mac, price and feature-competitive with PCs, and bundled with terrific software and great support.

    3. Re:Taking Risks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem with the Newton was price, price, price.

      The original Palm had many disavantages, especially compared to the Newton 2000 (the freakin' thing was as powerful as a P90), but when the Palm was 1/4 to 1/3 the price, people were willing to overlook the disavantages.

      Handwriting recognition, even on the original Newton, wasn't as bad as the press made it out to be. However for 100% recognition it required a little work on your part (gasp!):
      A) Write block text, not cursive
      B) Go into preferences and stop it from tyring ot use cursive recognition
      C) Go into preferences and tell it to look for the variety of block text that was as close as possible to what you normally wrote.

      With those three things done, I literally NEVER had even the original Newton fail to translate my writing into english. I'm not kidding, and I had inherited one of the original Newtons. Later it got upgraded to the 130 model but primarily because the company wanted to keep it current.

      The problem with the Newton was people just wanted to pick it up and write chickenscratch cursive that nobody except themselves could read. Then of course they got pissy when a computer couldn't convert chickenscratch into english. Going into the preferences and doing anything so that it could more appropriately translate their chickenscratch was not an option. If it didn't work from square one they started flailing their arms and gnashing their teeth and complaining about the sky falling.

      Since the only time I write cursive is my signature (which bears little resemblance to actual cursive), block lettering was a natural for me, and actually going in and configuring it didn't mean the end of the world. But oh well, I guess those two things make for an unsellable product in today's world of immediate gratification.

  255. Re:Apple ///, no. Apple SOS, yes. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There has always been stories of the /// being unreliable. However, I've got a /// complete with monitor /// and profile hard drive and believe it or not, it actually works! What I hate about it is having to do some sort of disk-based configuration. I have not figured that out yet.

  256. Re:"Apples == expensive" not a stereotype by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Great. You found a budget brand cheaper than an Apple. You're looking at opposite ends of the quality spectrum here. Averatec is for people who want to spend as little as possible. Apple is for people who prefer quality. While Apple is cheaper in the long run, you pay a little more up front for that quality. Next time you want to do a price comparison between a PC and a Mac, look at a Sony or Toshiba. The closest Sony to the 12" iBook is about $1K more than the Apple. When you have to replace that Averatec two or three times over the lifetime of that Apple that you didn't buy, you'll realize that it wasn't such a good deal. Have fun in virus land with your high-TCO toy. I'll be doing real work for less money with my 12" Powerbook.

  257. Re:Apple ///, no. Apple SOS, yes. by aknutberson · · Score: 2, Funny
    initial production runs had a defective real-time clock (great idea, Apple was again ahead of its time)

    Meaning, it gained rather than lost a few minutes each day?

  258. Overpriced, Overhyped by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    High Tech with an 18-35 demographic "attitude".

    If Microsoft is the U.S.S.R., Mac is North Korea.

    Open Source is where freedom and quality can flourish.

    1. Re:Overpriced, Overhyped by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For those pups too young to remember, the USSR was Communist Russia, before Eastern Europe did the political equivalent of going "open source"! ;)

    2. Re:Overpriced, Overhyped by bubbler · · Score: 1

      Perhaps a better analogy would be "If Microsoft is the USSR, Mac is Beverly Hills 90210."

      --
      Feel free to disagree with the above -- I often disagree with what I say!
  259. Only a mac story... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...could someone call Windows a "flop" and end up getting a +5 insightful. People, start metamodding so we can keep these fucking zealots from getting mod points.

  260. Re:A special flop the Slashdot crowd will apprecia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I started at VT in '87 as a CS major and we got MacII systems with A/UX on them. 16MHz 68020 with a PMMU for virtual memory support, a whole 8MB of RAM, 80GB hard drive. Dual boot MacOS and A/UX, in fact if I remember correctly it booted into MacOS and then switched into A/UX due to boot process issues in the ROM. It did run MacOS programs under A/UX, just very slowly. Of course looking back everything was pretty slow back then in comparision.
    Overall it wasn't a bad computer, better than the PS/2 systems the engineering majors were getting. I still have the computer at home but only with MacOS 7 now.

  261. My Uncle's E-Mac is frozen...any suggestions? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Even the power button doesn't work. Should he unplug the unit? Thanks!

  262. Last Post!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I beat the baker, I beat the cook, I beat all you biotches to the back of dis book!

    Booyakasha!

  263. 20th Anniversary Mac? by schiefaw · · Score: 1

    How about the 20th Anniversary Mac? It was pretty cool, but offered at a wacky price and never really sold. http://tam.axon.net/spartimage.htm

    --
    Angleyne: You can't bend that girder - it's unbendable! Bender: Well I don't know anything about lifting, so that ju
  264. Re:"Apples == expensive" not a stereotype by Lifewolf · · Score: 1

    Have fun in virus land with your high-TCO toy. I'll be doing real work for less money with my 12" Powerbook.

    I hope your Powerbook serves you well. With my two year-old 15" Powerbook Titanium, I'm on my third power adapter, second battery, and second SuperDrive. I baby the thing, so I'm told it has actually held up better than many of the other Titanium Powerbooks at work.

    The Powerbook is a great machine, and I love it, but sometimes I think it has as many design issues as my old Compaq Contura Aero 4/33c. Yay, screen clutch!

    --
    "Be Happy or Die." -- AoN
  265. Re:A special flop the Slashdot crowd will apprecia by Undertaker43017 · · Score: 1

    You were lucky. I forget what they used in '86, I don't believe the Mac II's were out yet, probably Mac Plus's.

    The Mac II was a cool box, for the time. It was the first truly expandable Mac, and a choice of monitors. ;)

    I have forgiven Apple for the Lisa/Lisa 2/Mac XL (mine still boots BTW), and own three current Macs.

  266. Yes. by aristus · · Score: 1
    There is also a strong correlation with black berets, van Dyke beards, organisers from Levenger's, and cars designed by obsessive-compulsives in Germany. It is amazing how many things these people own that are shiny, small, expensive, and have rounded corners.

    (I have a Mac. Relax. It's a fricken joke.)

    --
    Sometimes seventeen/Syllables aren't enough to/Express a complete
  267. the gravity thing by hawk · · Score: 3, Informative

    It's also hard to sell a machine to businesses when part of standard maintenance on it was to lift it two inches from the desk and drop it--especially when that suggestion came from the manufacturor (it caused the RAM chips to reseat).

    hawk

    1. Re:the gravity thing by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      I've always wondered if that had anything to do with IBM's decision to solder all the ICs on the original IBM PC's motherboard. I thought that was a horrible idea at the time (I was accustomed to being able to just replace a bad chip) in that it forced shotgun service. Motherboard don't work, replace it, don't fix it. And that sucked for the people that bought them for personal use and got whopping repair bill. But for business it made a lot of sense: it did increase reliability and reduced labor charges substantially.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
  268. APPLE FUCKING FANBOY ZEALOT IDIOTARIANS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Why is it whenevr anyone says anything that's even a little bit critical or analitic about Aaple they get modeed down by legions of Aaple fanboy idiots. If something is not the usual (OSX! WhooO! iPods! Whoooo!) dont just be a damn lazy coward and automatically mark it down. Thats a chumps game. Write something that tells me why that opinion stinks and yours is better.

    Or is thinking too much about the Church of Fucking Gay Steve too difficult? Too hereticil?

    Fucking Aaple sheep you make me sick.

  269. what about the Apple III? by peter303 · · Score: 1

    Apple pushed this as a business-class computer between the Apple II and Mac I. It was too stuffy for hobbyists who continued to upgrade their aging Apple IIs. And Apple did not have enough of an "adult image" to compete with the recently introduced IBM-PC. Apple finances were flailing during this period.
    The Lisa(s) were another failed attempt in the business market between the Apple II and Macs, but other people have discussed that.

  270. mod Parent UP! by enkidu · · Score: 1

    Mod parent up. My neural circuits seized up when my eyes saw the numbers 7.5.3 and it took a while for the memories to force their way through the coccoon of protection I had put up around them. Then I screamed and tried to put them back. 7.5.x was one of the darkest times I ever saw using the Mac OS: rampant system instability, installation hell, incompatible/buggy/broken extensions and control panels galore. 7.6.1 was the true beginning of the recovery in my book. Thanks, I guess, for the memories.

    --

    There is no trap so deadly as the trap you set for yourself
    -Raymond Chandler, The Long Goodbye
  271. Re:A special flop the Slashdot crowd will apprecia by hey+hey+hey · · Score: 1
    I think what really killed A/UX was MAE

    Naah. What killed A/UX was Apple's refusal to sell the product. If you weren't a developer, or an educational institution, you couldn't buy the damn thing for love nor money.

    Made selling products into the marketplace pretty dang hard (guess who tried). :-(

  272. Re:"Apples == expensive" not a stereotype by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Apple iBook Notebook 12" M9623LL/A (1.2 GHz PowerPC G4, 256MB RAM, 30GB Hard Drive, Combo Drive, Built-in AirPort Extreme)

    Initial price: $999.99

    ($100 rebate)

    (no sales tax from Amazon.com [most states])

    (free shipping)

    Final price: $899.99

    You can have your Avertec. I'll keep my inexpensive iBook thank you.

  273. Re:Hands off my Colour Classic you damn dirty ape by Megane · · Score: 1

    I'd like to see someone hack a Mac Mini into a Color Classic case. It'd probably even fit.

    --
    #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
  274. Whole text mirrored here by BTWR · · Score: 3, Informative

    Apple Pippin

    Introduced under Spindler's rule as CEO, the Pippin sould have won Apple a position in the console market, one Apple had yet to penetrate. Apple's goal was to make the Pippin a multimedia machine, capable of reading CD ROMs, surfing the internet and to play games.

    Apple had decided to share the Pippin's source code with developers for a licensing fee. The developers had a lot more flexibility, and would be able to redesign the Pippin's software to make it attractive for any number of markets. However, Apple was able to recruit on 4500 developers willing to pay the licensing fee.

    The operating system of the Pippin was based on the MacOS. With a PowerPC 603 running at 66 MHZ, the Pippin used a similar processor to desktop macs. Being a multimedia machine, the Pippin was capable of producing CD quality sound, and displaying up to thousands of colors. With the powerful Power PC processor, Apple thrashed Nintendo and Sega consoles performance wise, but never won a sizeable portion of the market.

    OpenDoc

    The concept behind OpenDoc is an intuitive one. Many elements of applications are redundant (calculators, multimedia players, spreadsheets). Why not 'cut them up' and use different modules interchangeably. Each file would then make calls on these different modules as needed. With OpenDoc, if a user wishes to create a word processor document that includes a spreadsheet, the user would not have to copy it over as a table, or use a gimped up version included with the word processor, instead they could call up the ClarisWorks for OpenDoc Spreadsheet module and have a full blown spreadsheet in the middle of a word processing document.

    OpenDoc development started in 1995 in collaboration with Novell, IBM and Apple. In 1997, Apple integrated OpenDoc into its core strategy, releasing several OpenDoc apps, and including the technology in Mac OS 7.6. At the same time, the technology was being developed for Windows and UNIX. The companies created the Ci Labs which would authorize OpenDoc components that proved to be compatible as "Live Objects".

    In accordance to Apple's vision, it became possible with the OpenDoc compatible version of ClarisWorks to create a document that integrated various OpenDoc modules. The example below has an integrated VideoConferencing session with QuickTime, a browser frame from CyberDog and a graph from another OpenDoc module.

    Since 1996, Novell has ceased Windows development of OpenDoc, forcing IBM to take on responsibilities for the platform at the same time they continued development on their AIX (UNIX from IBM). The two versions both evolved and were mature commerical products in 1997. There were problems for OpenDoc, however. At the same time, Microsoft released ann updated version of OLE, and released ActiveX, that closely mimicced the OpenDoc principles. OpenDoc was embraced by major OS developers, but it had failed to attract third party developers. Mac OS 8 was the last release from Apple to include OpenDoc, and it was quietly killed at the hands of Gil Amelio.

    Mac TV

    Apple was the first major personal computer manufacturer to release a machine with a bundled TV tuner to the public. The Macintosh TV was Apple's first effort in merging the home theater and personal computer. The machine was also one of the only two black Macs ever made (the second being a special edition 5400 sold only in Europe)..
    The Macintosh TV was first envisioned as a tenth anniversary Mac, but it was eventually cancelled. After the unexpected success of the Color Classic, John Sculley requested that a machine comparable to the Color Classic be made with a CD ROM drive and a 14" Trinitron CRT. The logic card was a slightly modified IIvx, Apple's midrange 68030 machine. The Macintosh TV was released on October 23, 1993, shortly after being resurrected.

    The new machine was designed to be low cost and have a small footprint. Its most notable features were its TV tuner card and remote control. The TV tuner code had RCA and coaxial inputs, allowing us

  275. Re:Horsy takes Prawn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Holly: You want Red Dwarf, you've got to fight for her. I challenge you to the game of your choice, may the greater mind win!
    Rimmer: Oh, my God.
    Holly: For the winner, command of Red Dwarf.
    Queeg: And for the loser?
    Holly: The loser will be erased--terminated, oblivionized.
    Cat: Bye-bye, Baldy!
    Holly: Name me a game.
    Queeg: Chess.
    Holly: It can be anything. Any game at all.
    Queeg: Chess.
    Holly: Draughts, poker, anything.
    Queeg: Chess.
    Holly: Subbuteo, Snakes and Ladders...
    Queeg: Chess.
    Holly: Monopoly, maybe? I'll let you go first.
    Queeg: Chess!
    Holly: So you like a bit of chess, do you?

  276. Network Servers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What about the Network Servers that ran AIX? Those were a so much of a flop, not many people have heard of them.

  277. Compaq Contura? by Cybrex · · Score: 1

    FWIW, I've been quite pleased with the durability of my 1st generation 12" PowerBook. It's always on, always with me, and has suffered nearly constant abuse, and I have to say that it's worked for me much better than I've worked for it.

    The virus/spyware issue is where I think that the Mac gains a significant edge over Wintel machines in TCO. In my work environment it's nearly impossible to keep a Windows box spyware free for longer than a week, dispite a robust corporate firewall and significant web site blocking.

    However, that's not why I'm replying to your message! Completely off-topic, I'm doing a little side project for which I'm considering cannibalizing the LCD from a Compaq Contura. I've been having difficulty finding some reliable specs, however, so maybe you can help. Specifically, is it color or monochrome, and do you happen to know the display's maximum resolution? Thanks!

    -Cybrex

    --
    Boundless Expansion, Self-Transformation, Dynamic Optimism, Intelligent Technology, Spontaneous Order- BEST DO IT SO!
  278. Re:"Apples == expensive" not a stereotype by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

    Beats me -- that's why I got an iBook instead!

    (the Powerbook does have some advantages... but if they're enough to justify the extra cost, they're only barely so.)

    --

    "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

  279. Re:Apple ///, no. Apple SOS, yes. by slapout · · Score: 1

    Just curious. You seem to have been in the repair business for several years. How do computers today compare to computers back then as far as repairs?

    --
    Coder's Stone: The programming language quick ref for iPad
  280. Re:Apple has had many quality problems... by symbolic · · Score: 1


    Anyone who had an original 128K mac (or even later models) was well familiar with the power supply problems. Later hardware, like the studio monitors, also had problems, and I'd be willing to bet that there are others. I don't think Apple is anything special when it comes to quality. Trendy, perhaps a bit innovative, yes. But based on my own experience, I'd say it's quite average.

  281. Re:Apple has had many quality problems... by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 1

    I don't think Apple is anything special when it comes to quality. Trendy, perhaps a bit innovative, yes. But based on my own experience, I'd say it's quite average.

    Highest resale in the industry, check. Highest customer satisfaction according to consumer reports, check. First mainstream offering of GUIs, mice, USB, firewire, etc., check. My six year old tower that has never been turned off for more than a day and runs 24/7 is still running as a PVR/mp3 player/DVD player/Web server having never had a single hardware failure, check. Based on my experience, and a great many industry evaluations, I'd say Apple is one of the best in the industry. They are innovative like no other retail PC vendor in hardware and software. As far as laptops are concerned, their are as many powerbooks here in my office as PCs, and many of them were purchased by the owner, not the company. Why do you suppose that is? I suppose it is because the engineers at this network security firm are really concerned about being trendy? Or maybe it is because quality hardware and software and good prices lead people who spend all their time on computers and do a lot of research into them to want to buy a good one.

  282. Re:"Apples == expensive" not a stereotype by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My dad got one for $999 with DVD burner, 80gb HD, etc.

    That's funny, cause the link you provided shows that model costs from $1149.99 to $1249.99.

    Maybe your dad used your employee discount?

  283. Who? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    +1, Insightful

  284. Re:"Apples == expensive" not a stereotype by rjung2k · · Score: 1

    Less than what you'd have to spend for a Windows PC that can run Final Cut Pro.

  285. 1710AV by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The 1710AV monitor fiasco. It made me leave Apple for several years.

  286. Re:MICROSLOTH FUCKING FANBOY ZEALOT IDIOTARIANS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Fuck you cock sucking PC faggots! Now go play on that little Wintel shitpile you worship and fuck off! Asshole!!

  287. You're Fucking Wrong by meehawl · · Score: 1
    Apple has been consistently profitable for the last five or six years.

    Oh really? Consistently? Going from Apple's own investor relations information, I find the following:

    2004

    Net Sales:$8,279m

    Net Income:$279m

    2003

    Net Sales:$6,207m

    Net Income:$69m

    2002

    Net Sales:$5,742m

    Net Income:$65m

    2001

    Net Sales:$5,363m

    Net Income:-$25m (LOSS)

    2000

    Net Sales:$7,983m

    Net Income:$786m

    But there's a bigger issue in that Apple has been one of the most consistently strident anti-options expensing companies in Silicon Valley. This is because Apple has always engaged in massive year-on-year dilution of outstanding stock. It's one reason the Apple share price has been so crappy for years. And one reason why Apple's "profits" are less than the full monty.
    Check the footnotes in the 10-K for the pro forma reconciliation of the result of the firm's generous options plan. For 2003, the $0.19 profit turns into a $0.27 loss. For 2004, the $0.71 profit shrinks down to $0.45.
    If Apple had expensed options last year it would have had to knock down its profits by a third. And it would have lost money in each of the previous three years. If Apple did something *useful* with its cash on hand, like invest in acquisiton growth or share buybacks, then it would be useful. Tech companies holding on to that much money as dead cash is just silly.

    Now, why don't you go off and check your fucking facts and stop trying to substitute profanities for information because, subconsciously, you're over-compensating for what you know at your heart is a tenuous grip on what you are actually talking about.
    --

    Da Blog
  288. you're trying to rewrite history by jeif1k · · Score: 1

    Okay, jackass, implement those "solid technical foundations" on an 8Mhz 68000 with 128K of RAM and a 400K floppy, yet still have room left for applications.

    I don't have to, someone else already did: a preemptively multitasking 32 bit operating system with a microkernel architecture, programmable file system devices, and built-in scripting, running on pretty much the same hardware as the Mac (at a considerably lower price, too).

    In the early 80's? On what GUI, pray tell? Apple was innovative for having a GUI, and being the first personal computer with one.

    The first commercial personal computer with a GUI probably was the Xerox 8010, released in 1981. The Smalltalk GUI came into existence in the late 1970's, and the Lisp machine window system in the early 1980's, both powerful, well-architected, object-oriented systems. X came out in 1984 and rapidly evolved into X10 in 1985. The Blit was published in 1985, although it also had been in development for several years.

    Everybody was developing GUIs in the early 1980's; Apple was just following an industry trend, and they cut enough corners to get to market a little earlier than the others.

    NOTHING used object orientation yet outside of research; certainly no OS development - it was way too slow for the processors of the era.

    Wrong. OOP doesn't require powerful processors, and there were several efficient object-oriented languages around already. Simula-67 came out in 1967 (!).

  289. Your Game History Is Less Than Accurate by meehawl · · Score: 2, Interesting

    where do you think Sims (SimCity) and Tetris came from?

    SimCity? First released in 1987 on Commodore 64 (first demo in 1985!). Re-released in 1989 simultaneously on PC and Mac. Also released in 1989 for Amiga, Spectrum/Timex-Sinclair, Amstrad, and Atari ST.

    Tetris? First implemented on Electronica 60 (PDP-11 clone!) in 1985. Ported to IBM PC during 1986 and circulated. Ported to Apple II and Commodore 64 in 1986. Spectrum Holobyte commercial re-release on IBM PC in 1986.

    --

    Da Blog
  290. Re:A special flop the Slashdot crowd will apprecia by OwnedByTwoCats · · Score: 1

    The Mac portable was a hit in the group I worked in. I remember bringing it to a meeting, fireing up FrameMaker, and listening to the jaws of all of the Unix guys rattling on the table. "You can run FrameMaker on that thing?" Yup.

    It was heavy. But it had enough horsepower to do outstanding stuff in 1990, stuff that noone thought a portable computer could do.

  291. Digital I/O by meehawl · · Score: 1

    I'd have to buy add an Audigy to the PC to get that kind of functionality.

    If you think that then you are missing out on one of the best sound cards of recent years: Via's Envy24. My Envy 24 HT-S does up to 192 KHz, has optical digital in and out, bit perfect output, ASIO support, 7.1 channels, and cost me $20.

    --

    Da Blog
    1. Re:Digital I/O by k96822 · · Score: 1

      $20-dolla'? There must be a catch -- ! Thanks for that -- I'll look into it! I'm currently running a Extigy on my PC for sound production, which I really like. But, it was $150!

      Thanks for the heads-up!!!!

  292. Mac Is Security Through Obscurity by meehawl · · Score: 1

    don't complain at the cheap security that lets your PC get buried under an avalanche of trojans and spyware..

    I think you're being complacent. If the Macintosh installed base ever goes above 3% again then you will start to see viruses, trojans, and other nastiness. With a marketshare so low, Macintosh exploits are not culturally profitable for kiddies to create, and cannot reproduce because the Macintosh herd is so diffuse. Exploit propagation on connected networks is really a function of platform density.

    --

    Da Blog
    1. Re:Mac Is Security Through Obscurity by freedom_india · · Score: 1
      If the Macintosh installed base ever goes above 3% again then you will start to see viruses, trojans, and other nastiness.

      Have you EVER heard of UNIX security? Try writing a trojan for OS X and see how fast and wide it can propagate.

      Oh BTW, Exploit propagation on connected networks is really a function of platform density is just so plain wrong. The Slammer worm Hit S.Korea as much as it hit Britain. So don't go spewing some tecchnobabble to increase your karma...

      --
      "Doing what i can, with what i have." ~ Burt Gummer
  293. Fading Away by meehawl · · Score: 1

    you call that "fading away?"

    Take a look at Mac unit sales and dollar volume sales from 5 years ago, and from the mid-90s. Then take a look at total PC industry unit sales and dollar volume figures. Then get back to me.

    Also, the fact that Apple was rrefreshing their stagnant line of G4s for G5s (and in fact the channel dried up for G4s for almost an entire quarter) created a dead cat bounce.

    --

    Da Blog
  294. ARM is 6502 On Steroids by meehawl · · Score: 1

    Other than the minor detail that it probably would be a far worse hack than the 8086/186/286/386 instruction set.

    The StrongARM architecture, which powers the iPod and a lot of other cool PDAs, is basically a souped-up lineal descendent of the 6502. Surprised?

    --

    Da Blog
    1. Re:ARM is 6502 On Steroids by Megane · · Score: 1
      I've programmed ARM assembly language (with no OS, even), and written Atari 2600 code, and no it's not. The only way ARM can be considered a descendant of the 6502 is in the minds of people who don't know much at all about CPU architectures. It was only a successor to the 6502, in that Acorn switched over to it, just like how Apple switched from 680x0 to PowerPC. Successor != descendant.

      ARM is mostly a generic 3-operand RISC instruction set, with PDP-11/68000 inspiration for its opcodes, plus the added wierdness of every instruction having a conditional attached to it.

      The 6502 was this wierd... thing... which is basicallly a 6800 with stripped down registers and a couple of indirect addressing modes added. The single accumulator caused an emphasis on using the zero-page as a register file, making it semi-RISC in nature.

      --
      #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
  295. iPod Uses "6502 on Steroids" by meehawl · · Score: 1

    Just the thought of giving that one 32 bit registers and calling it a day, is not a pleasant thought.

    The StrongARM architecture, which powers the iPod and a lot of other cool PDAs, is basically a souped-up lineal descendent of the 6502. Surprised?

    --

    Da Blog
  296. iPod Uses 6502 on Steroids by meehawl · · Score: 1

    The 6502 series was 8-bit

    The StrongARM architecture, which powers the iPod and a lot of other cool PDAs (and also powered the Newton), is basically a souped-up lineal descendent of the 6502. Surprised?

    --

    Da Blog
  297. Acorn Had The Right Idea by meehawl · · Score: 1

    The 65816 got its doors blown off in the speed race by the end of the 1980s.

    Yes, the 65816 had limited headroom. CISC gone mad. But there were other, better descendents of the 6502 available then, and now...

    The StrongARM architecture, which powers the iPod and a lot of other cool PDAs (and also powered the Newton), is basically a souped-up lineal descendent of the 6502. Surprised?

    --

    Da Blog
  298. FUCKING BREEDER MAC CUNTS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    i use linux you dumb as shit mac breeder cunt

  299. eWorld memories by Distortions · · Score: 1

    I used eWorld for 2 months. I was there at the closing party. We all counted down to midnight.

    5.. 4.. 3.. 2.. 1.. *click*. I was there the moment eWorld closed.
    Man... I hadn't thought of that in years.

    --
    Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see.
  300. Re:Apple ///, no. Apple SOS, yes. by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

    As I pointed out, they eventually fixed it but was too late. Apple only sold about 65,000 of the 90,000 or so machines that were made.

    --
    The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
  301. Re:Apple ///, no. Apple SOS, yes. by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

    No, as I remember it would work for a while and then quit. The Apple rep told us that the parts were defective, but I don't really know what the actual problem was.

    --
    The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
  302. Re:Tangerine (iBook) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I have the Tokyo 2000 (when they upped the memory to 64 MB and the hard drive to 6 GB) iBook in Tangerine, and while it can't keep up with my 800 MHz white iBook I sure prefer the older machine. It's not just the color, the smooth curve of the original iBook palm rest makes typing a lot more comfortable than the squared-off one that's digging into my forearms as I type this.

    I'm trying to come up with a way to cram a 12" powerbook into an original iBook case--seems like there's enough space. If I do, you can be it'll be Tangerine!

  303. Unix Security by meehawl · · Score: 1

    Have you EVER heard of UNIX security?

    My friend, I was online and programming on a Unix machine the day the Morris Worm took it down along with a big chunk of the Internet running BSD (the ancestor of OSX). If OpenBSD can be exploited (and it has!) then your magic incantation of "Unix! Unix!" carries about as much significance as the utterations of a shaman. Do you even know anything about epidemiology? Why not go look up the words "Prevalence", and "Incidence" and then get back to me.

    --

    Da Blog
    1. Re:Unix Security by SteeldrivingJon · · Score: 1

      My friend, I was online and programming on a Unix machine the day the Morris Worm [wikipedia.org] took it down along with a big chunk of the Internet running BSD [wikipedia.org] (the ancestor of OSX).

      The difference is that Unix OS developers have learned from the Morris worm. Microsoft, on other other hand, has developed their OS to be a worm farm.

      --
      September 2011: Looking for Cocoa/iOS work in Boston area Cocoa Programmer Quincy, MA
    2. Re:Unix Security by freedom_india · · Score: 1
      Correct...The inccidence of Worms and Trojans in Windows is much higher than those in UNIX.

      My friend bought a Toshiba Laptop with XP SP2 installed. He tried setting it up for our wireless LAN to download SpyWare Blaster and AdAware...and before he was done, his machine was infected by a Trojan which changed his homepage easily. ..

      --
      "Doing what i can, with what i have." ~ Burt Gummer
  304. Top Ten things wrong (actually only 2) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    1. Gil Amelio
    2. Gil Amelio
    3. Gil Amelio
    4. Gil Amelio
    5. Gil Amelio
    6. Gil Amelio
    7. Gil Amelio
    8. Gil Amelio
    9. Gil Amelio
    10. Ellen Hancock (Amelio's CTO)

  305. Only Time Will Tell... by drseuss9311 · · Score: 1

    ... if any strategy pays off in the long run.
    I think your comment is a cop-out answer to avoid the debate.
    However, I found it insightful because it was funny.

    --
    ------ no thanks... I've quit
  306. Re:Apple ///, no. Apple SOS, yes. by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

    Actually, I was only in the repair business in 1980-1981. I quit and went full-time as an independent consulting type after that (mostly industrial data acquisition systems, although I did a stint at Mindscape as a video-game developer at one point.) But still ... the Apple ][ was easy to repair in that all the ICs were socketed (all of them) but you had to have some idea what you were doing. The IBM PC came along and radically changed everything by their shotgun-service approach. Everything was soldered on the mainboard, and you simply replaced major components (mainboard, power supply, disk drive, and so forth.) Hell, on the first PCs that came out the RAM was soldered in as well. But that's pretty much how it is today too: chip level service is a thing of the past.

    --
    The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
  307. Can vaporware be a flop ...? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I thought a flop had to be tested and fail in the marketplace. The Pippin didn't even get a release...

  308. not worth it by commodoresloat · · Score: 1
    Worth it? Well, I replaced it with a G4 Cube that runs 1/10 as hot, 1/1000 as noisy, three or four times as fast, and much, much prettier.

    So, in other words, you lose all of the advantages of the ANS. ;^)

    1. Re:not worth it by FredFnord · · Score: 1

      Heehee! I'm not going to say you're right, but I will say that, due to the fact that I had the ANS in one of my bedrooms and slept in a top bunk in that room during the winter, I never had to turn the heat on in my apartment for two years.

      Of course, I was living in the south SF Bay at the time, but it's still quite an accomplishment for a place where, one of the years, it frosted over every night for a month and a half.

      -fred

      --
      Sign #11 of Slashdot overdose: You see the phrase 'moderate Republican' and you wonder if that would be a +1 or a -1.
  309. The Legend of The Leader by A. Zealot by Ohreally_factor · · Score: 1

    Sculley understood soft drinks - a mature industry. He had no idea what to do with a compuer company.

    And ultimate responsibility for bringing Sculley on board rests with The Leader. Not that he didn't pay for that decision personally, but if you're going to blame Sculley, you've got to also blame Jobs for picking him and then convincing him to come on board.

    The Leader is such a fascinating character. His ego is as legendary as his Reality Distortion Field (RFD). Yet one has to wonder what led him to select Sculley to run the company. Was he pressured by the board and the shareholders? Did he have insecurities about his abilities to lead Apple? Or was it both, an internal and external crisis of confidence that caused the RFD to malfunction, rendering the board temporarily immune to The Leader's charisma?

    Another possibility is that Jobs thought he could rule Apple as if he were a prince with a personal fiefdom, and he thought he was appointing Sculley as Chamberlain to do the day to day drudgery of operating a company. The Leader mistakenly thought that he could concentrate on the "fun stuff", the "passion" to make insanely great products, without getting bogged down with the overall responsibilities. How crushing that must have been, to find that he didn't hold the keys to the kingdom, to be exiled from his paradise.

    I think that moment of exile marks the beginning of The Leader's adulthood. But that is a story for NeXT time.

    --
    It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
    1. Re:The Legend of The Leader by A. Zealot by DarkVader · · Score: 1

      ahh, to be able to mod things funny.

      I wasn't in favor of Jobs coming back. I would much rather Woz were capable of taking over management functions - but he's an engineer, and only wants to be an engineer.

      So no, I'm not a Jobs fan. I'm a Woz fan, and I'll be unapologetic about that, but I've been pleasantly surprised that Jobs hasn't fucked everything up a second time.

  310. Re:Apple's Biggest Flop: Losing Nerd Mindshare in by skeptictank · · Score: 1

    This is true. It is where they really screwed up. For some reason Apple has never been able to court 3rd-party developers well.

  311. Ofcourse, lest we forget... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...the iAnus. It had a cult following, but eventually had to be removed from store selves. Thankfully, there are plans to incorporate an iAnus port on the next iPod - or so the rumors suggest.

  312. Pedantic quibble by porkchop_d_clown · · Score: 1

    The last Amiga model was released in 1993. Amigas were being by Commodore till their bankruptcy in 1994.

  313. 4 words for your "3" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    DVD Studio Pro 3

  314. Re:Apple ///, no. Apple SOS, yes. by slapout · · Score: 1

    I remember Mindscape. (Am I getting old?)

    the Apple ][ was easy to repair in that all the ICs were socketed (all of them)

    Wow.

    on the first PCs that came out the RAM was soldered in

    Yeah. I bought an IBM AT at a flea market once. Its amazing how many RAM ICs are in there.

    --
    Coder's Stone: The programming language quick ref for iPad
  315. Re:Apple ///, no. Apple SOS, yes. by g0at · · Score: 1

    Do you phonetically pronounce it the "Apple slash slash slash" or the "Apple three"? Am I the only one who can't stand this \/\/4cky \/\/4y 0f \/\/r1T1ng? Can't you just type "Apple III"? Yeesh.

    -b (only half tongue-in-cheek)

  316. Big Iron by meehawl · · Score: 1

    What exactly do they have that is exciting?

    Trust. And several well functioning sales channels.

    Enterprises don't trust Apple. They certainly don't trust Jobs. And Apple's specialized sales channels (*not* Best Buy!), such as they are, are withering away and exist in a state of seemingly perpetual cold war with Apple. Which in recent years has been moving as quickly as it can to a Dell/Gateway direct sales with boutique model that only alienates them further.

    --

    Da Blog
    1. Re:Big Iron by SteeldrivingJon · · Score: 1

      Trust. And several well functioning sales channels.

      I suspect that Apple would not benefit from those things, should they acquire Sun. Sun customers would probably start researching non-Sun alternatives, rather than buy from Apple.

      After all, if Apple bought Sun, Sun's customers would be looking at unavoidable drastic change in the near future. (The product lines would be simplified, probably meaning an end to Solaris, and probably also much of the Sun hardware.) Customers might as well take their fate in their own hands and decide the changes themselves.

      (It'd be kind of like IBM's PC customers, currently investigating alternatives due to the Lenovo deal and the resulting uncertainty about the future of the products.)

      If Apple wants to do enterprise sales, they'd be better off just hiring people who can do it well, and building an organization from scratch, rather than buying a whole company most of which they don't want or need.

      A good place to start might be the Peoplesoft employees who've been laid off by Oracle. And maybe some IBM staff who don't relish working for Lenovo.

      --
      September 2011: Looking for Cocoa/iOS work in Boston area Cocoa Programmer Quincy, MA
  317. Another Dead Project..... NetWare on the Mac by firedeveloper · · Score: 1

    This wasn't so much a flop as much as a product killed by marketing, but I have a working Beta CD of "NetWare for PowerPC". Which took a perfectly good macintosh (Circa 1995) and turned it into a NetWare 4.1 server...

    To think, I ported 2 million lines of code and it sits on the shelf....

    Ah well....

  318. LC III by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They never used "///" again, or any roman numeral above it.

    What about the LC III?

  319. Re:Compaq Contura? [Off-Topic] by Lifewolf · · Score: 1

    Completely off-topic, I'm doing a little side project for which I'm considering cannibalizing the LCD from a Compaq Contura. I've been having difficulty finding some reliable specs, however, so maybe you can help. Specifically, is it color or monochrome, and do you happen to know the display's maximum resolution?

    Yes, the Compaq website used to provide quite a wealth information and resources for their old notebooks. Unfortunately, that mostly disappeared when HP showed up.

    More unfortunately, I believe there were a range of Compaq Contura models, and I only have experience with the Contura Aero, an odd-ball in the Contura family. I can tell you that the Contura Aero 4/33c featured a color screen, while the Contura Aero 4/25 was greyscale. Both were 640x480 and only 8 inches diagonal. Laughable today, but not bad for the first subnotebook all those years ago.

    Anyway, good luck with your project. Your best bet for specs may be Googling for information on getting Linux--and more specifically, the X Windows System--running on Compaq Contura systems.

    --
    "Be Happy or Die." -- AoN
  320. You're Still Fucking Wrong by meehawl · · Score: 1
    --

    Da Blog
  321. Re:Tangerine (iBook) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You shouldn't be resting your wrists or arms when typing, only when actually resting.

    You should be holding them above the keys.

  322. Wow! Thanks for the info! by xeno-cat · · Score: 1

    And congradulations on the porting work, A/UX was something quite unique and special at the time, at least the 3.x series. I have 2.0 CDs but have never installed them. I don't think they had Finder integration until 3.0.

    Did you guys do just the porting of, I believe SVR2 as well as the BSD integration, MacOS7.1 modifications and Apple Unix utilities such as the pop up command editor called, I think, Komander (to get it you type in a command, like "grep" and then hit <command>K to get a graphic dialog with most of the command options)?

    Did you guys port the GCC tool chain or was that the community? Was Steve Jobs involved at all, as per my previous speculation? It looked like he was seriously eyeing the Unix market back then. Although you call A/UX a foot note to Apple.

    You guys turned those boxes into real computers. While most people were dinking around with Windows 3.11 I had my Mac and Unix too!

    Kind Regards

    --
    "A few great minds are enough to endow humanity with monstrous power, but a few great hearts are not enough to make us w
    1. Re:Wow! Thanks for the info! by hey+hey+hey · · Score: 1
      It was a long time ago :-(

      We did the SVR2 and BSD work (that was part of the "usual" Unisoft product), and standard UNIX/BSD utilities, along with a bunch of "under the hood" stuff most users never knew about. We didn't directly do any MacOS changes, but we (well, mostly Paul Campbell) had a hand in the MacOS environment you could run from A/UX.

      We had a compiler suite (we built native on the box), that shipped with the release, but I really can't remember anymore if it was GCC based or not (I DO remember we were trying to sell some 3rd party compilers, maybe Greenhills?, as add on products). I THINK it was AT&T based, but it has been too long.

      Steve Jobs was not involved in any way with A/UX. I faintly remember he contacted Unisoft about maybe doing the initial port for the Next box (lots of people used us to bootstrap, we were quite fast at it), but I can't remember if anything came of it (I really don't think so).

  323. Thanks again by xeno-cat · · Score: 1

    I think I may just go fire up that Quadra sometime soon.

    Thanks for the replies, I'm an A/UX cultist of one.

    Kind Regards

    --
    "A few great minds are enough to endow humanity with monstrous power, but a few great hearts are not enough to make us w
  324. Re:"Apples == expensive" not a stereotype by smaug195 · · Score: 1

    The question was just laptops comparable to iBooks. Now personally I like OS X, I have a mac mini, but I can never get an apple laptop. Until they get one to below 3 lbs, it's just not going to happen. It's amazing to me that at 4.6lbs, the 12" Powerbook is one of the HEAVIEST 12" laptops on the market. You would think for the price they might make it portable.

  325. Its memory lives on... by Grendel+Drago · · Score: 1

    Its memory lives on on Wikipedia, at least.

    Say, if you were that deeply involved in its creation, is there any chance you could donate a nice PNG screenshot (if it had a distinctive-looking interface), or maybe some informative but really obscure tidbits to the article.

    Just sayin'. Yeah, it's writing for free, but you're already doing it on Slashdot, and you'd be adding to the sum total of human knowledge that's in an easily-accessible form. Shiny!

    --grendel drago

    --
    Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
  326. Re:Clones? by tjlsmith · · Score: 1

    Ah yes - Mac clones.

    I wanted a Mac very much, but they were very expensive. Furthermore, no one was cloning them, like the PC was being cloned.

    Also - there was no Mac-like operating system out there. Someone told me Apple had patterned the microcode or something, the first time I had heard of that happening.

    THEN - I heard about this company making Mac clones! Oh Boy! I started investigating, only to have Steve Jobs buy the company and close it. This is the sort of restraint of trade that really bothers me.

    So much so, I went out and bought an XT clone instead and the rest is history. I have never owned a Mac.

    --
    Mumia Abu-Jamal is *laughably guilty*. Check the evidence.
  327. Re:"Apples == expensive" not a stereotype by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm typing on one right now, in bed, held above me. I don't see a problem. And let assure you I don't workout.

  328. Depends... by Grendel+Drago · · Score: 1

    Well, depends what you mean by "design heritage". We all use binary and programmable machines, so we're all indebted to Zuse's Z3 in some fashion.

    But I am curious---what sorts of design elements were present in the Intel 4004 which are discernible in the Pentium 4? My knowledge of chip architecture is pretty sketchy, but I'd be interested to know what's survived over the years, even if it's something totally idiosyncratic and meaningless.

    --grendel drago

    --
    Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
    1. Re:Depends... by Dogtanian · · Score: 1

      My understanding is that the form of the instructions, and some of the basic instructions themselves are the same as, or similar to the 4004; that is, it's not like they started from scratch when designing the x86 instruction set.

      OTOH, I am not an expert on the x86 and I could be talking out of my backside, so don't use that as the basis for your PhD thesis.

      --
      "Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
  329. Executor! by Grendel+Drago · · Score: 1

    Dude! I remember Executor! Well, mainly I remember my brother saying it could run Mac things, and then not being able to boot it, probably because we didn't have a boot ROM. We gave up, and went back to playing "Blake Stone: Aliens of Gold" or whatever the hot warez were that week.

    But it was the first I ever learned of emulation, before ZSNES and Nesticle. Ah, those were the days.

    --grendel drago

    --
    Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
  330. Re:A special flop the Slashdot crowd will apprecia by Elysdir · · Score: 1

    Thanks for posting this! I was disappointed not to see A/UX on the original list.

    I did QA for A/UX 3.0 back in '91-'92 (as a contractor working at Apple), testing 3rd-party applications for compatibility. Various of us referred to A/UX as "Apple's best-kept secret"; most of my Mac-user friends had never heard of it.... As someone else noted in another comment, I don't think the government contracts were the only reason for A/UX's existence, but my impression was that pretty much nobody else was buying the OS.