Slashdot Mirror
Apple Macintosh Turns 30
snydeq writes "30 years ago today, Apple debuted the Macintosh. Here are some reviews of the early Mac models, including the Macintosh ('will be compared to other machines not only in terms of its features but also in the light of the lavish claims and promises made by Apple co-founder Steven Jobs'), the Mac SE ('contains some radical changes, including room for a second internal drive and even a fan'), the Mac IIx ('a chorus of yawns'), and the Mac Portable ('you may develop a bad case of the wannas for this lovable [16-lb.] luggable'). Plus insights on the Macintosh II's prospects from Bill Gates: 'If you look at a product like Mac Word III on that full-page display, it's pretty awesome. ... But the corporate buyer is never going to be a strong point for Apple.'"
iFixit got their hands on a Mac 128K and did a teardown, evaluating the old hardware for repairability. What will the Mac look like in another 30 years?
I loved that when I turned on my old Apple IIe it dropped me right to a 'root' BASIC terminal and didn't cost a dime to begin my software enterprise as an elementary schooler. The Mac? Well, Resedit was just not the same...
Still have it, should check to see if it runs.
I don't want to start a holy war here, but what is the deal with you Mac fanatics? I've been sitting here at my freelance gig in front of a Mac (a 8600/300 w/64 Megs of RAM) for about 20 minutes now while it attempts to copy a 17 Meg file from one folder on the hard drive to another folder. 20 minutes. At home, on my Pentium Pro 200 running NT 4, which by all standards should be a lot slower than this Mac, the same operation would take about 2 minutes. If that.
In addition, during this file transfer, Netscape will not work. And everything else has ground to a halt. Even BBEdit Lite is straining to keep up as I type this.
I won't bore you with the laundry list of other problems that I've encountered while working on various Macs, but suffice it to say there have been many, not the least of which is I've never seen a Mac that has run faster than its Wintel counterpart, despite the Macs' faster chip architecture. My 486/66 with 8 megs of ram runs faster than this 300 mhz machine at times. From a productivity standpoint, I don't get how people can claim that the Macintosh is a superior machine.
Mac addicts, flame me if you'd like, but I'd rather hear some intelligent reasons why anyone would choose to use a Mac over other faster, cheaper, more stable systems.
Capacitors are failing on analog boards that haven't been powered up in 20 years.
They used lead solder back in those days, assuming the floppy drive isn't too dusty and your boot disk is intact.
When Steve Jobs died I booted a mid-80s Mac and it came up fine. MacPaint (source code here) was an amazing feat given that it had to run in 128KB (really 192KB - like most Mac applications of its time, it made extensive use of the code that was in the 64KB of ROM).
So was the "disk copy" program that could copy a 400KB (400,000 byte) disk in only 4 passes. It stole a large chunk of the 22KB RAM normally allocated to video to do it.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
MS Word on the original Mac was an incredible change. (This was before MS went all gung ho on Windows: they were still doing MS DOS and Windows was this DOS addon). I remember doing my physics papers on it and being able to put in math symbols and format and a bunch of other font and formatting things - all with a click of the mouse! And the WYSIWYG interface that printed what you saw on the screen!
That was mind blowing back then. Because before that it was a text editor and trial and error in getting it to print well - or just an old fashioned IBM Selectric and a bottle of White-Out.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, I had to write papers in the snow, uphill, both ways,.... AND LIKED IT!
Pure anecdote, but my current job in software development and the previous two were at small companies that were 100% Apple shops. At this point the latest Windows version with which I have any real experience is XP. I spend 95% of my time either in a cross-platform browser, a cross-platform IDE or at a bash prompt. So the only real advantage to Windows (ignoring gaming) is to make the last one of those (bash prompt) more annoying.
That's how they pitched the Mac... that is to say, a computer that's not just for computer nerds.
"I think a nerd is a person who uses the telephone to talk to other people about telephones. And a computer nerd therefore is somebody who uses a computer in order to use a computer."
- Douglas Adams
That video has no volume control? It's hidden under some sort of fade graphic? Oh the irony that Apple got its reputation for a user interface, but that this video made me want to hurl the computer right at the head of the idiot who decided it's OK to cover the interface of the video player.
Siri came out a little too late to us in a 2001 commercial.
...and *still* stuck in their parent's basement, unable to make it in the business world.
I purchased my first Macintosh in 1990. A Macintosh LC to replace my Apple //e. I would have purchased a Mac much sooner, but I was waiting for a color model I could afford. I couldn't see moving from my color //e to a black & white Mac.
When did you purchase your first Mac, and which one was it?
that in the commercial Apple was referencing 1984 and all the invasion of privacy and Big Brother-ness that went along with it, and now they are doing essentially the same thing.
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
We got one in our lab the first day. Although there were a couple of other graphical workstations just starting to come out, this was by far the cheapest.
The original Mac did not have an internal disk, but a 384K floppy. 128KB was way too small. You couldnt get rid of the annoying watch icon until about 512K.
Today you get a million times more memory- 128GB flash drive- for a lower price.
Memory was shared poorly between the CPU and video. Compared to the Amiga and Atari ST, the Mac128K ran very slowly. While the Amiga and ST could overlap CPU memory cycles and video memory cycles running the CPU at nearly full speed, the Mac designers had the CPU waiting every other four CPU cycles to give video time to access memory. The CPU effectively ran just slightly faster than half speed for most codes during pixel display.
It only ran at full speed out of ROM and during video blanking intervals.
"On March 24, Apple will introduce Mac OS X... and you'll see why 2001 won't be like '2001'!"
I don't like the movement of Apple towards a Microsoft-like business model where they care about their own corporate agenda more than their users, but as long as they don't make it a total walled garden it still deserves some respect.
When I saw on Wikipedia on Tuesday night that the next day was the 30th anniversary of the famous Super Bowl ad, I went to the Wikipedia article about it. Did you catch what Big Brother was saying on the screen--the thing that the Macintosh was supposed to destroy?
Today, we celebrate the first glorious anniversary of the Information Purification Directives. We have created, for the first time in all history, a garden of pure ideology—where each worker may bloom, secure from the pests purveying contradictory truths. Our Unification of Thoughts is more powerful a weapon than any fleet or army on earth. We are one people, with one will, one resolve, one cause. Our enemies shall talk themselves to death, and we will bury them with their own confusion. We shall prevail!
Oh, the irony! Apple has turned into that. They brought the walled garden to the world of phones and tablets, and given Microsoft's moves relating to its own walled garden, I wouldn't be so sure that Apple won't try the same thing for their iconic 30-year-old line of machines.
That video from the link in the post is like a cavalcade of hipsters!
"Never give up, for that is just the time and place when the tide will change." -Harriet Beecher Stowe ^_^
But is still couldn't open the pod bay doors.
I remember the first time I saw a Macintosh. I was in my late teens, very much a young techie, and visiting what few computers stores there were at the time was a treat for me, I'd maybe get an opportunity to play with some of the new, cutting-edge stuff I could only dream about affording. At the time I was using Z80-based systems running CP/M, so there were no fancy bitmapped graphics for me, only a text terminal with ASCII/ANSI character sets. I'd heard about this "Macintosh" thing, and happened upon one, and sat and played with it for a few minutes. I found the "graphical user interface" to be "cute", but somewhat useless. After poking around with it for a few minutes, I thought to myself "well, this graphical thing is cute and clever, but let's get a look under the hood at the real operating system" and attempted to find a way to exit to the command line I expected was underlying this frilly graphical thing on the screen. Imagine my surprise (and to a lesser degree, horror!) when I discovered that this frilly, almost childish-looking graphical thing on the screen was in fact the operating system itself! I shook my head and blinked in disbelief and walked away, disbelieving that anyone could ever do anything useful with such a machine. To this day I've never owned an Apple product, but I guess I do have to admit that they were on to something big with the Mac.
..and no, Mac fans, I am not trolling you, and this is not flame-bait either, this is a true story, so spare me the hate, OK?
Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
The Blackbird.
It was chunky by modern standards, but back in 1994 it was elegant and sleek. I still think it looks really good. More importantly, I think the 540c was the best computer for *working on* I've ever had. It had a terrific keyboard, a trackpad whose operation has never been equalled in my opinion, and you could swap out the optical drive for a second battery for a then-astounding four hours of battery life.
The screen was in modern netbook range for size (9.4 inches/24 cm diagonal), and very low resolution (640 x 400), but somehow it was very comfortable to work on for a long time. The entire system had only 4MB of RAM, but the software was built around this and it felt like plenty. About the only thing I didn't like was the proprietary Ethernet transceiver connector, (a) because it was proprietry and (b) because it was garbage. That's it. Everything else was as perfect as the technology of the day could make it.
If I could have a mint 540c with software and a pair of fresh batteries, I'd use it instead of my modern laptop for a lot of things like writing where I had to focus on one thing for a long time, use a keyboard and didn't need a lot of CPU. Alternatively I'd settle for a laptop with a really good keyboard.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
To the left of the actual Mac SE review, there is an ad sporting "WordPerfect is Now Easy to Learn". Ach. Those times.
Religous speak to God. Insane are spoken to by God. When all shut up, one can finally hear Shostakovich in peace
A/UX was indeed expensive. But even the early Macs could be decent Unix machines, as time (and open source a decade or more later) proved. The SE/30 was an incredible machine - able to take up to 128MB of RAM back when 'standard' was 1MB or less! Mine has seen lots of use as my piddly little home webserver.
PHEM - party like it's 1997-2003!
all the invasion of privacy and Big Brother-ness that went along with it
Apple is the only large company left that is not trying to track everything you do to resell to others. Your data is YOUR DATA on an iOS system, not going into the Googleplex to figure out what ads to send you...
They are exactly as they were in the ad, a fighter against a central overseer directing your whole life.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Especially with regards to the Mac platform I have no idea what you are talking about.
They are all the same. Just a bit different. No vendor has a big advantage over the other. The same people make the same stuff for all the operating systems. I love my mac. I can't use it for work because I am a microsoft-type developer. I use a different machine for that. I love my pc server box. It is great. It works really well. If I install crap on it, it runs like crap and I have to re-install. I used a mac desktop at work. I hated it. It was still speedy but I don't like using it for development. And that bullshit with the video adapters... But whatever.
They are all the same. If one really had some big innovation that was so great, everyone would know it.
I am wondering if you have some software that is eating up your IO like a scanner from the security guys or what. Everyone knows something unrelated to the hardware (unless something is failing) is at fault there. Unplug the network cable and see what happens.
I think it was 8ghz/turbo, 4mb or ram, a 40mb hard drive, and a 28 dialup modem so I could try out this internet thing everyone was talking about. Was big enough to install windows 3.11 on barely. I wish I kept it just got kicks.
Some apps reimplemented command lines, and a lot of apps went to the super-limited interface, of course... but most stepped into the relatively new paradigms of the GUI (Apple not being the first, but popularizing it)
Some friends and I were Apple II developers back then. We therefore had automatic acceptance into the Mac developer program. So we signed up and bought a Mac as soon as possible.
:-)
Months before the Mac shipped, Apple sent the Inside Macintosh manuals (a set of three ring binders). So we had docs but no computer, Apple found a way to get developers to read the manual.
While reading Inside Macintosh they introduced us to the new GUI paradigm and offered a convincing argument to go with the GUI and not just implement a terminal/console user interface.
We couldn't afford a Lisa for development so we got 68,000 coprocessor boards for our Apple II's, cross assembled 68K assembly, and downloaded the binary to see it run. Took me days to get an application menu going, it was very frustrating, then I learned that the A5 registers was not for general purpose use.
Not having a CLI and forcing developers to either limit their applications to what could be pointed at and clicked, or implementing their own application-specific CLI is one of the reasons why the Macintosh ended up being a niche platform, ...
Someone seriously misinformed you. I did Apple II, Mac and PC DOS and Windows development back in the day. The PC beat the Mac on price, there was no preference for CLI over GUI. When PC users had a chance to ditch CLI for a half decent GUI they jumped at it, MS Windows 3 (1 and 2 didn't qualify a half decent GUIs).
No one wants to give a "shout out" to Xerox and the PARC labs?
I remember people going wild with fonts composing documents - because they could! Ditto a few years later with PowerPoint. Then some people learn the rules of simplicity and coherent design and it got better.
Cool, so Apple won't actively seek to stop jailbreaking phones, reaching root?
Correct, they never have. They only shut down exploits that could affect security for normal users (like the PDF exploit some time ago), not paths to jailbreak via a USB connection...
One of the main people in the Jailbreak community has long said Apple could easily shut down jailbreaking if they wanted - they choose not to.
Furthermore, Apple happily hires people from the jailbreak community (as they did with the person who developed Notification Center). Apple looks on the jailbreak community as a kind of external R&D.
I'm glad you understand things better now.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley