Slashdot Mirror
A Review of the 128KB Macintosh
bfwebster writes "The physicist John Wheeler famously quipped that 'Time is nature's way to keep everything from happening at once.' The web flattens time by making more of the past accessible. Here, then, is a reprint of BYTE's official review of the original 128KB Macintosh from the August 1984 issue. The article highlights the radical break with other PCs that the Mac represented, while at the same time giving the first real warning of Steve Jobs's least-productive tendency: pre-emptive and often arbitrary constraint of end-user options (e.g., no memory expansion on the 128KB or announced 512KB Macs, even though the 68000 processor had a lovely, flat 16MB address space, as opposed to Intel's 808x segmented hell)."
It's eriee how similar this statement is to the statements which we get every time Apple launches a new product even today... "a .wma icon was included with the iTunes app in Mac OS X Tiger" or a while back it was possible to unlock the "secret colour screen" on your iPod 3rd gen. (it made the screen turn blue.)
Also similarly, the author says he actually wouldn't like colour, and he's glad Apple left this feature out. (Remind anyone of Steve Job's current stance on the video iPod?)
My 3D Texturing Skinning work (under construction)
Byte was such a great magazine. It tried to cover a wide range of computer and technology related subjects. I really miss it.
"Leo Fender was in a 'state of grace' when he designed the Stratocaster." -- Paul Reed Smith
I had a Mac 128 w/2 drives. The thing that made the Mac immortal wasn't necessarily the user interface, though the user interface was indeed revolutionary.
.
The thing that made the Mac immortal was the fact that anyone could "publish" documents from their desktop without needing complex typesetting systems or knowledge of traditional "publishing" and commercial printing processes.
At the time, most people with home computers didn't even have printers, which were expensive, error-prone, often massive, and didn't produce pretty output. All non-industrial printers at the time were either dot matrix or daisy wheel (using letter blocks like a typewriter to pound letters through a ribbon) impact printers and had only one typeface at one size. On dot matrix printers the quality of these letters was horrible (think NINE dots of vertical resolution per letter for consumer-grade printers or FIFTEEN dots of vertical resolution for business class printers). Very expensive printers might have a second "high quality" typeface that you could select by pressing a button on the printer, but this typically wasn't much better.
Basically, the process of creating a printed document with a computer had, until the Mac, been one of simply typing ASCII into a very basic editor program (Linux users: think pico or similar; Windows users, think Notepad), then sending it to the printer directly as a stream of characters, which it would output using its single available ugly, low-res typeface and size. No formatting, no fonts, no graphics, certainly (even the dot matrix printers generally didn't have any graphics capability whatsoever--it just wasn't included; only the ability to accept a stream of ASCII and dump it out to the page was in the ROM). What little formatting could be performed (left/right justification, line spacing, etc.) was often set in a word processor as a document property globally, and wouldn't be displayed on the screen as you typed.
The Macintosh and relatively cheap ImageWriter printer changed all this radically; you could format text using multiple typefaces, set them to a range of sizes, boldface, italicize, even full justify (!), and not only would these things appear on the screen as you did them (beyond magical in an era in which most PCs also only had the ability to display ASCII on their screens, lacking graphics capability unless you had expensive hardware like a so-called Hercules card, IIRC, still mono), but they could be output to the printer and would appear on the page just as they did on the screen. And you could even mix text and graphics
This kind of capability was unheard of because it had never before been available to the consumer at any price, and certainly not in a system that required no specialized knowledge to use.
You knew the Mac was an important computer historically from the moment it was released, because within a month or two, in any city or neighborhood, every newsletter, advertisement, flyer, poster, city council report, whatever that hadn't been commercially printed had obviously been done on a Mac. Everyone knew what a Mac was and knew that it was the computer that could be used to publish readable, visually pleasing, professional documents straight from your office or bedroom, for just a few thousand dollars.
STOP . AMERICA . NOW
Although the 128k had many a kludge with respect to memory management, multitasking, etc. I'd argue that Apple had the right approach when it came to telling developers what to expect. Direct interactions with hardware were frowned on. Apple's early design guidelines were very explicit about NOT assuming anything about the hardware, file system, display, etc. Developers that took this advice to heart could create applications that were future compatible.
The result is that I still use some applications on a near daily basis that were introduced in 1987/1988. These apps could run on a Mac Plus (System 6, 8 MHz 68000, 2 MB RAM, 800k floppies) and now run on a dual-G5 (OS 10.3, 1.8 GHz G5, 1 GB RAM, 160 GB SATA HD).
Apple may not have designed pre-emptive multitasking into their early systems, but they did create a development ethos that meant that early applications were not incompatible with the major changes in both hardware and OS that occured later.
Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do.
The PC's success was driven largely by business usage. In 1984, you would have bought a PC because it had one of the best keyboards that has ever been made, and it had an outstanding monochrome text display (with a crisp font and specialized long-persistence phosphor).
Basically, the PC was a standalone version of IBM's high-quality mainframe terminals. It was designed for people who needed comfortably to run business apps all day long. This is not something that you would want to do on the primitive color monitors of the day, and the Macintosh was a brand new architecture with a radically different UI and zero business software available at its introduction. The PC also had IBM's support and brand name; as they say, you'd never be fired for choosing an IBM.
When the clones came along and offered PCs to the public at low prices, people bought a computer just like the ones at work that they were already familiar with. The rest is history.
Like it or not, part of technology is making it accessible to common person. Geeks may look down on Apple's products for not being ugly black things straight out of a 1985 stereo room, but that's because geeks don't know the first thing about marketing technology.
As for my problem with the guy, the entire premise of his column is that he is an ignorant prat. Once he came on board, Byte started degenerating into yet another PC rag.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
The introduction and review was in the February 1984 issue, with the Mac on the cover. This is the article for the geek; it includes block diagrams of the architecture and pictures of the motherboard.
The Feb 1984 issue also included an interview with the designers.
I was hoping TFA would be the February article, because it actually is very interesting. In it, they make a big deal about the justifcation for certain design decisions, most notably the lack of expansion slots. Instead, they included "virtual slots", in the form of "high speed" serial ports (RS-422).
Remember that they were trying to solve the problems of the Apple ][, one of was how the expansion boards fitted into the memory map. By eliminating expansion slots, they hoped that it would improve stability, by ensuring that the developers would have a fixed machine environment to work with. They thought that by including all the ports a user would ever need, there would be no need for expansion slots.
Then a couple of years later, Apple decided that expansion slots were good (with the Macintosh II).
It is kind of funny that with the iMac, Apple came all the way around back to the same port-expansion ideas that were discussed in the Febuary 1984 article and interview.
If anyone can find the Feb 1984 article and interview online, it is a good read.