Slashdot Mirror


The Apple Mac Turns 35 Years Old (theregister.co.uk)

On Thursday, Tim Cook took to Twitter to celebrate the 35th anniversary of the Macintosh, recalling how it changed the world. "35 years ago, Macintosh said hello. It changed the way we think about computers and went on to change the world. We love the Mac, and today weâ(TM)re proud that more people than ever are using it to follow their passions and create the future," Cook tweeted. The Register provides a brief history lesson on how the Mac changed how users interact with computers. Here is an excerpt from the report: After the disastrous debut of the Lisa, and the abject failure of the Apple III, it was down to the Steve Jobs-led Macintosh project to save the day for the troubled computer manufacturer. Rival IBM had launched the Personal Computer XT just under a year earlier, in March 1983, with up to 640KB of RAM and a mighty Intel 8088 CPU. It also included PC-DOS 2, which would go on to underpin Microsoft's operating system efforts in subsequent decades. IBM had started to rule the PC industry, but what the IBM PC XT did not have was a graphical user interface, sticking instead with the sober command line of DOS. The Macintosh, on the other hand, had a GUI lifted from Apple's ill-fated Lisa project, except (and unusually, as things would turn out) retailed at a lower price of $2,495 (just over $6,000 in today's money). It ran faster than the Lisa too, with its Motorola 68000 CPU clocked at 7.8MHz.

The good news ended there. The machine shipped with a woeful 128KB of RAM, which was shared with the black and white 512 x 342 pixel display built into the box. That 128KB was resolutely not upgradable, and fans would have to wait until September for Apple to unleash a 512KB version for another $300. The only storage provided was a single 400KB 3 1/2;-inch disk, an improvement over the 360KB 5¼-inch floppies of IBM's PC XT and the nature of the box meant that any extra storage would have to be external. Users became quickly accustomed to swapping floppies in order to do what little useful work the pitiful 128K would afford. Third parties eventually launched hard drives for the machines, which had to be attached via the serial port. Apple would make a 20MB drive in the form of the Hard Disk 20 available in September 1985 for the 512KB Mac at a cost of $1,495. Owners of the original 128K Mac, however, needed not apply. The limited RAM made the new Hierarchical File System a non-starter.

250 comments

  1. Could be worse by TimothyHollins · · Score: 1

    Still beats Windows ME.

    1. Re: Could be worse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Happy birthday, original walled garden.

    2. Re: Could be worse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A lot of people failed to understand the Mac at the beginning but the friendly and attractive and intuitive interface really caught on. And for many of us who wanted something more than a DOS prompt it was a dream come true - something that we honestly could not have imagined before it happened

    3. Re:Could be worse by crow · · Score: 0

      What was wrong with Windows ME? My impression was that Windows 98 and Windows ME were, at least from a user perspective, little more than service updates to Windows 95. I was already running Linux by then, though, so I wasn't paying that much attention. It was released at about the same time as Windows 2000, which was at the time viewed as the corporate solution, with Windows ME being the home solution. I think Windows ME flopped in the marketplace as consumers saw no compelling reason to upgrade, and Windows 2000 proved successful enough to dominate sales with new computers.

      Was Windows ME really bad, or just irrelevant?

    4. Re:Could be worse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What I remember most about Windows ME was many, many BSODs. In my opinion, it was really bad.

    5. Re: Could be worse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I know beauhd has his drivers license because he was spamming some lame car on twitter. That gets him half-way there, right?
       
      Safety not guaranteed.

    6. Re: Could be worse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ME crashed all the goddamn time. And hardware drivers didn't work. All the driver development focused on win2k/NT.

      Yes ME really was bad.

    7. Re:Could be worse by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Was Windows ME really bad, or just irrelevant?

      If I recall correctly, Windows ME was really bad and irrelevant.

      Our support folks recommended that everyone wait a year for Windows XP. Irrelevant.

      One department in my lab played with it a bit, just to see if their Windows product ran OK it. They gave up on it, because of constant BSODs. Bad.

      --
      Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
    8. Re: Could be worse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Windows ME was Windows 98 without the testing. MS wouldn't assign QA to work on it. Since MS didn't take Windows ME seriously, neither should anyone else.

    9. Re: Could be worse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Intense negotiating ... maybe she can get the presidential age lowered. She seems clever enough.

    10. Re: Could be worse by coastwalker · · Score: 1

      Unless you read the copy of Byte that described the Lisa computer interface that Apple stole of course. The MAC was wonderful but there were competitor operating systems like the Digital Equipment Corporations GEM or even the Comodor Amigas that were equally utilitarian. Apple was fortunate to be able to compete with the IBM pc in the business market and exclude the competition. The rest is history, another monopolistic giant corporation took over the world and we now think it was the only innovator in the market. Bullshit.

      --
      Facts are history now plebs have politics for religion on social media.
    11. Re: Could be worse by NicBenjamin · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Uhh...

      Lisa was an Apple product. Jobs actually ran the team that designed it, and named it after his daughter (to be fair, he repeatedly denied that under oath, as part of his decade plus long quest to avoid child support). In January '84 the only GUIs actually on the market were Lisa, MacOS, and a remarkably craptacular version of Windows. GEMS was a year later, and never really became a thing in the US. Amiga came out a few months after that.

    12. Re: Could be worse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You really should read up on computing history some time. The Lisa GUI was shop lifted from the Xerox Alto GUI that Steve Jobs spied on during a 1979 tour of the Xerox PARC facility where it was being developed. The Lisa/Mac mouse was an exact copy of the Alto mouse as well - except beige.

    13. Re: Could be worse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Read more history - Apple licensed tech from Xerox, no shoplifting necessary. Also Lisa was not an exact Alto copy.

    14. Re: Could be worse by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 3, Insightful

      > In January '84 the only GUIs actually on the market were ... (snip)

      Yup, GUI's were all the rage in the mid 80's.

      > and a remarkably craptacular version of Windows

      While Windows 1.0 was announced in 1983 it doesn't actually ship until November 20, 1985. Ironically a Microsoft engineer coined the term "vaporware" due to it taking so long! Who knew.

      > GEMS was a year later

      GEM (not GEMS), announced in 1984, was released on 28 February 1985 before Windows. Ventura Publisher, released in 1986, the first DTP on PCs used GEM. I'm not sure why it took until the March 1987 issue of Infoworld to review it (lead in time?). Technically, Aldus Pagemaker 1.0 was released in July 1985 for Mac OS but it didn't get ported over to Windows 1.0 until 1987.

      And in 1986 GEOS was released.

    15. Re: Could be worse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Read more history - Apple licensed tech from Xerox

      No, they didn't license anything. They got no languages, no code, no documentation. Apple had to create their systems from nothing.

      In fact, many years later Xerox sued Apple for copying their GUI.

    16. Re: Could be worse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, this Apple mouse is quite clearly an EXACT copy of this three-button mouse from the Alto, only a slightly different shade of beige.

    17. Re: Could be worse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Where by "Stole" you meant "licensed"

    18. Re: Could be worse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Where by "Stole" you meant "licensed"

      Nope. Apple did not license anything from Xerox. They just got a couple demo tours.

    19. Re: Could be worse by Cmdln+Daco · · Score: 1

      Apple sued, and ran out of business, the companies that produced GEOS and GEM. They drove the products off the market with lawyers.

      In effect, they wiped out the companies producing competitors for Microsoft's Windows environment. GEOS and GEM both had versions targeted at the MS-DOS systems.

      Yes. Apple ran Microsoft's competitors out of the GUI market, assuring the Wintel Monopoly once Microsoft won the look-and-feel lawsuit.

      It makes sense, though, because Microsoft in the early years was one of the dominant Application developers for the Macintosh.

    20. Re: Could be worse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Apple sued, and ran out of business, the companies that produced GEOS and GEM. They drove the products off the market with lawyers.

      Neither Digital Research nor GeoWorks went out of business because of lawsuits by Apple. I don't know where you get that bullshit from.

    21. Re:Could be worse by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Windows ME was utter shit.

      I unfortunately needed to use it a few weeks, as I bought a new computer for my GF. But luckily I could downgrade it. For some reason Windows 98 did not install on it, so I needed to exchange the hard drive for one that had Win98 already on it. I don't remember what was "wrong" or "odd" ... I tend to forget my computer nightmares, luckily ... I had so many already.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    22. Re: Could be worse by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      In January '84 the only GUIs actually on the market were Lisa, MacOS
      That is not correct ... Apple IIs also had the option for graphical OSes and there was a hobbyist UCSD Pascal based GUI OS for Apples, too. (I used all of them, so I know :D )

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    23. Re: Could be worse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Apple IIs also had the option for graphical OSes

      If you're thinking of GS/OS that didn't come out until 1988.

      > and there was a hobbyist UCSD Pascal based GUI OS for Apples, too

      If you mean Instant Pascal that came out in 1985.

    24. Re: Could be worse by NicBenjamin · · Score: 1

      You first.

      Xerox was very well-compensated for that in Apple stock options. If they'd just kept the roughly $1 Mil worth of stock they were given they'd have hundreds of millions.

    25. Re: Could be worse by NicBenjamin · · Score: 3, Informative

      They forced Digital Research to change some elements of their interface, but did not drive them out of business. If you are familiar with MacOS and you see some screenshots of early versions of GEM you won't argue that Apple was wrong to sue those guys. They never sued GeoWorks.

      They sued MS in '88. That was Windows 2.0, BTW, so it's not like it was a system anyone actually wanted. That suit dragged on until '97 when Jobs signed a deal with Gates. By '97 the Wintel monopoly was so well established that IBM's OS/2 Warp was an also-ran.

    26. Re: Could be worse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Xerox wasn't given any stock - they were given a chance to buy Apple stock. Which they did, and made money on it (so it was a payment in spirit if not in fact).

    27. Re:Could be worse by omnichad · · Score: 1

      Different driver model that hardware manufacturers could not follow correctly. Lots of crashy things came out of it.

    28. Re: Could be worse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > That suit dragged on until '97 when Jobs signed a deal with Gates.

      Actually that case was decided in Microsoft's favor in 1994, before Jobs returned to Apple.

    29. Re: Could be worse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Safety not guaranteed."

      A great low budget SciFi movie. I highly recommend it.

    30. Re:Could be worse by 4im · · Score: 2

      Was Windows ME really bad, or just irrelevant?

      If I recall correctly, Windows ME was really bad and irrelevant.

      Our support folks recommended that everyone wait a year for Windows XP. Irrelevant.

      One department in my lab played with it a bit, just to see if their Windows product ran OK it. They gave up on it, because of constant BSODs. Bad.

      Actually, anyone with any sense having to use Windows (yes, I also was on Linux back then, dual-booting with OS/2 Warp 3), went with Windows 2000. IMHO one of the best releases of Windows - NT with decent performance and sensible GUI, no activation yet (came with XP), none of the instabilities of the DOS-based versions (i.e. Win95/Win98 or ME), and of course no telemetry yet.

    31. Re: Could be worse by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      It's not stealing if you develop an idea that its originator had no intention of bringing to the market. That's why patent systems are supposed to include an exploitation requirement.

    32. Re: Could be worse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      GEM was Digital Research, Inc., not Digital Equipment Corporation. Others have pointed out the numerous other failures in your post.

    33. Re:Could be worse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > (yes, I also was on Linux back then, dual-booting with OS/2 Warp 3)

      We don't care. Stop trying to be a showoff. Maybe save that stuff for your mirror.

    34. Re: Could be worse by StuartHankins · · Score: 1

      I remember GEOS, thanks for bringing back some great memories!

    35. Re: Could be worse by tigersha · · Score: 1

      I actually used Ventura on Gem. Was totally rad except I only had a dot matrix printer.
      But it triggered a lifelong fascination and sort of career with DTP and documents. Today I toyed with indesigns touch mode as a result.

      --
      The dangers of excessive individualism are nothing compared to the oppressiveness of excessive collectivism
    36. Re: Could be worse by tigersha · · Score: 1

      Everyone and his cat thinks ME is the worst thing MS ever made, even worse than Vista

      --
      The dangers of excessive individualism are nothing compared to the oppressiveness of excessive collectivism
    37. Re: Could be worse by crow · · Score: 1

      That explains it! I have a dog. That must be how I missed how horrible it was.

    38. Re: Could be worse by MachineShedFred · · Score: 1

      What the fuck?

      You probably meant that they "stole" it from Xerox, except that they came and raided Xerox PARC with permission from Xerox, granted through giving them a bunch of Apple stock. Read: compensation.

      It's not Apple's fault that they bought the future for such a meager price. That would be on Xerox for not knowing that they had already invented the next 30 years of computing at a sleepy little office in Palo Alto.

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
    39. Re: Could be worse by MachineShedFred · · Score: 1

      You're conflating Apple v Microsoft actions.

      Look and Feel was closed in '94 when Apple's appeal to the US Supreme Court was denied.

      The suit you mentioned that Jobs and Gates settled was a different ongoing action about unlicensed use of QuickTime code / patents that Apple would have won, which is why Microsoft settled. Apple didn't have the resources to pursue it over all the appeals and bullshit without no longer being a company that actually produced anything but lawsuits at the end.

      Microsoft paid for their transgression. Apple got the cash they desperately needed to stay alive (added to the cash they got for liquidating their holdings in ARM at a massive profit) as well as a commitment from Microsoft to not hang the Mac out to dry on Office apps.

      Turns out Microsoft made a nice little profit on Mac apps as well as the non-voting stock they bought in the settlement too.

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
  2. Ouch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That blurb reminded me how much things used to suck.

  3. So much venom by thsths · · Score: 5, Insightful

    for a computer that revolutionised the very concept of a computer. The Macintosh was not about RAM, or CPU, or colour. The key part was the mouse, and GUI that could make use of it. That alone made it the most suitable device for a wide range of activities.

    1. Re:So much venom by cdsparrow · · Score: 1

      NeXTSTEP was probably the revolutionary there... The mac just brought those concepts to a wider audience really.

    2. Re:So much venom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      nextstep is what Job developed after the Mac and after he left apple. The Mac introduced those concepts to the lay public and nextstep build upon them, especially with regards to networking

    3. Re:So much venom by NormalVisual · · Score: 2

      Nope, it was the Xerox Alto. The Lisa and Mac UIs owe an awful lot to the tour that Xerox foolishly gave to Apple in 1979, and consequently Apple popularized the desktop metaphor years before NeXT was even a twinkle in Job's eye.

      --
      Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
    4. Re: So much venom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Funny I remember my aunt had one of those macs. I used to watch her use it from time to time - I was really young and just playing with trucks and blocks. I remember when I noticed that edit followed by bold made darker text. I started asking what the other menu items did and finally I started making my own pictures and doing homework on it. She used to sit for hours just letting me try stuff. I bought her a Pro for Christmas

    5. Re:So much venom by cdsparrow · · Score: 2

      I feel shame, did mean to write xerox instead of nextstep...

    6. Re:So much venom by NormalVisual · · Score: 1

      It happens, no worries. ;-)

      --
      Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
    7. Re:So much venom by magusxxx · · Score: 2

      I wish they would have also included Display Postscript.

      --
      Care killed the cat, but satisfaction brought it back.
    8. Re: So much venom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Imagine if the xerox UI had fallen into different hands. I think the computing field is probably very lucky Jobs got it and not someone else - it was probably inevitable because Jobs just could not contain his passion for computing and helping the average person

    9. Re:So much venom by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      The Macintosh was not about RAM, or CPU, or colour.

      The CPU was great, the color was fine, even 1bpp was acceptable. The RAM, however, was inadequate for a windowing operating system. 512kB would have been a more reasonable place to start. Even the budget-minded Amiga 1000 had 256kB. Speaking of the Amiga, the real problem with the Mac was that it was all-graphics with no graphics acceleration.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    10. Re:So much venom by pigwin32 · · Score: 4, Informative

      NeXTSTEP was probably the revolutionary there... The mac just brought those concepts to a wider audience really.

      NeXTSTEP wasn't released until 1989 so no, the Mac was revolutionary in its own right. Yes it aggregated existing tech but delivered it in a polished package and made it accessible to a wider audience. NeXT was what happened after Steve Jobs was sacked from Apple in 1985.

    11. Re:So much venom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Foolishly? I'm as anti-Apple as the next guy, but Jobs didn't steal anything--he had permission.
      But "popularized"? The Mac is at its most popular today, and it's still a small niche. Macintosh was always too expensive to popularize anything.

      I first saw a computer mouse in real life when my uncle got his first PC in 1989. It came with MS-DOS 4.01 and Windows 286 to install with a bunch of floppies. He tried playing Klondike solitaire for a while, then ignored the mouse thereafter.

      The GUI was popularized by Windows 95. Before then people would whine about using the command line, but you couldn't get anything done by clicking.

    12. Re:So much venom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which of course had you read the link and known something about it would realize all of these concepts were from Doug Englebarts Stanford Research Institute that his former colleagues ripped off and took to PARC. So Xerox gets no credit one for stealing ideas and for two never knowing how to execute and deliver.

    13. Re:So much venom by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Maybe, maybe not. I had used a mouse before this, and the original mac was sort of a joke among people I knew,. It looked nice but didn't do much. The GUI with the desktop orientation was odd (most people hadn't seen the Xerox workstations), prefacing the later arrival of Microsoft Bob. The GUI at the time was fine on very expensive workstations with much bigger screens, but for a "home micro" it didn't add much.

      On the other hand it created devotees almost immediately. Certainly easier to use and more sophisticated than Apple II, PC, and other DOS based home computers. So to users who had never seen anything other than microcomputers it was pretty astounding. The price point however put a lot of people off. Even the PC XT was extremely expensive for the little that it could do, and the Mac took that price to usefulness level even higher.

    14. Re:So much venom by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Xerox Parc and some other workstations at the time had the advanced GUIs. The NeXT computer came long after the Mac and was basically a simple competitor to other workstations.

    15. Re:So much venom by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 1

      What I remember most was the screen, which could horizontally display only 6 inches of the 7 inches-per-line (or was it 6.5”) of text my friend was typing - he’d gotten one of these Macs specifically to write his thesis on. To me, that just seemed like a ludicrous design decision... not being able to simply read one entire line without scrolling.

      I was not a Mac fan at all until they made the switch to Unix; although I do have fond memories of staying late after work sometimes to play Scarab of Ra and Glider.

      Nowadays, though, I do most of my work on a Mac. I just hope someone at Apple comes to their senses and starts offering decent hardware again before my 2015 MacBook Pro bites the dust.

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    16. Re:So much venom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dude the 'color' was 256 shades of gray ....

    17. Re: So much venom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      PDF and embedded PDF was central to OSX's rendering from the very onset. They are functionally equivalent, with the most important difference is that PDF doesn't require license fees.

    18. Re:So much venom by dcw3 · · Score: 2

      Did you have one? I did, and later a 512ke (which I still have). 128k worked perfectly fine for those windows, though I admit that I later put in a memory upgrade board. Your Amiga came out in July of '85, nearly a year and a half later, and by then, the 512k had been available for quite a while...released in Sep '84.

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
    19. Re:So much venom by hey! · · Score: 1

      It was a huge lesson for Jobs. The key to a revolutionary product is to make it just revolutionary *enough*, and then sell endless rounds of solid upgrades.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    20. Re:So much venom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Foolishly? I'm as anti-Apple as the next guy, but Jobs didn't steal anything--he had permission.

      Well, he had permission to SEE it... but he wasn't the only one. Simonyi showed the Alto to Bill Gates too.

      And Apple didn't license anything from Xerox, they had to develop all the Lisa/Mac hardware and software from scratch. Bill Atkinson told the story of how he came up with "regions" in QuickDraw based on his misunderstanding of what he saw at Xerox—he ended up inventing something better than what PARC did!

    21. Re:So much venom by NicBenjamin · · Score: 1

      Keep in mind that they got quite a few shares of Apple out of that tour.

      In hindsight the foolish bit isn't that they let the tour happen, it's that they sold out right after Apple's IPO for something $10 mil.

    22. Re:So much venom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      > Keep in mind that they got quite a few shares of Apple out of that tour.

      Actually they weren't given any shares. They just got the opportunity to invest in Apple.

    23. Re:So much venom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except both of those were pinched from the Xerox Alto.

    24. Re:So much venom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except they ripped both of those off from Xerox.

      For a brand that positions itself as all about design and innovation, Apple are utterly terrible at both. Woz and co did some interesting stuff from a technical point of view, mainly to get those features at that price point, but they don't get any credit for copying someone else's UI.

    25. Re:So much venom by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      Did not have much sound ability or ethernet.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    26. Re:So much venom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did not have much sound ability or ethernet.

      in 1984 an ethernet card cost more than a whole mac

    27. Re: So much venom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And stealing. Dont forget to mention how much job liked stealing other peoples work!

    28. Re:So much venom by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      That was the real business change needed.
      Networking, sound, color all got held back.
      The set computer design was great for profits per computer sold.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    29. Re: So much venom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In 1984, there were no good color options. Square black and white pixels was the best choice for the time. Networking in the form of AppleTalk came in 1985 along with the LaserWriter.

    30. Re: So much venom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      IIRC, Apple had to do a system software hack for the Macintosh XL, a rebranded Lisa that did NOT have square pixels. :)

      Of course, there was no Ethernet option for Macs until the Mac II was released and offered expansion slots.

      3Com made the first Ethernet card for the Mac and it retailed for $595.

    31. Re:So much venom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > in 1984 an ethernet card cost more than a whole mac

      Nah. You could get an Ethernet card for the PC for less than $1000.

      Steve Jobs did see Ethernet in action at Xerox PARC, but he would never have paid Xerox to license it, even if they could justify the cost. Apple back then had a serious case of NIH Syndrome.

    32. Re: So much venom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not to mention: competition is good.

    33. Re:So much venom by Cmdln+Daco · · Score: 1

      Nope, it was one bit monochrome. You weren't there, I take it.

    34. Re:So much venom by Solandri · · Score: 3, Interesting

      You gotta remember that 13" was considered a big screen for a computer back then. Most were 10" or 11" (the IBM PC had a rather generous 11.5" screen). So a 9" display wasn't that big a step down. Especially since the Mac was designed to be portable (one of the commercials had a guy putting it into a backpack). I never really understood what Jobs insisted on it being portable, but he did. At a 3:2 aspect ratio, that meant the screen was 7.5" x 5" - big enough to display a letter-sized sheet of paper with half inch margins (3/4" or 1" margins were the norm) without side-scrolling.

      The other reason for using a fixed screen size is because Apple wanted to make it truly WYSIWYG - your friend's thesis when printed would not only look identical in form, but it would also be identical in size. If the screen was showing an 11 point font, it was exactly the same size as an 11 point font when printed. Regular monitors at the time didn't have a way for the monitor to communicate its physical size and supported resolution back to the video card. So sticking with a fixed monitor was pretty much the only way they could do it for the first iteration. This is why Macs became ubiquitous in the publishing industry.

    35. Re:So much venom by Solandri · · Score: 1

      It included Appletalk, which let you connect computers into a network using a cheap cable. The speed wasn't that great (basically a fast serial port), but it worked for transferring data between Macs.

      Sound ability was limited on all computers of the era. Digital signal processors were ungodly expensive (as much as a computer; didn't come down in price until the 1990s), so sound synthesis was unaffordable. Memory was ungodly expensive too, so you couldn't play back high quality sound samples either (the 128 kB of RAM would hold just 5 seconds of a modern 192 kbps MP3 file) . That left some rudimentary synthesis with a square wave generator, some pre-selected samples stored in ROM, and instructing the speaker to generate a single frequency tone for x milliseconds (what we now recognize as 8-bit video game music).

    36. Re: So much venom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Iâ(TM)ve heard the same about the MacXL.

      Iâ(TM)m pretty sure there were SCSI/Ethernet adaptors for compact Macs.

    37. Re: So much venom by Cmdln+Daco · · Score: 1

      I have ethernet cards in the expansion slots of my SE/30s.

    38. Re: So much venom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > I have ethernet cards in the expansion slots of my SE/30s.

      I'm sure you do. That model came out in 1989, after 3Com's first Mac offering.

    39. Re:So much venom by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      Other computers had great "square wave generator" working at that time...
      Color too.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    40. Re: So much venom by magusxxx · · Score: 2

      We're talking way before OSX.

      If you were using one of the early versions of Adobe Illustrator you'd have to tell it to render in order to see the final image. Mattering on complexity, this took some time. And was tedious going from wireframe to render and then back to wireframe to change even the simplest of things.

      With Display Postscript this was all WYSIWYG. NeXT capitalized on this in their advertisements. Where they showed someone using Illustrator in real-time while the Macintosh was limited to toggling between views.

      --
      Care killed the cat, but satisfaction brought it back.
    41. Re:So much venom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      for a computer that revolutionised the very concept of a computer. The Macintosh was not about RAM, or CPU, or colour. The key part was the mouse, and GUI that could make use of it. That alone made it the most suitable device for a wide range of activities.

      And it still isn't... they still like to wait a very long time before upgrading the hardware... Yes the mouse.. it was about catering to users that found having 2 buttons confusing so they needed to have just one button on the mouse... and a GUI that could work with a mouse that had only one button...

      you are missing the most importat goal of the Mac and indeed any product from Apple, the goal of getting as many of the customers money as possible and to use religion to convince them that they are actually doing the customers favors by liberating them from all those money

    42. Re:So much venom by dryeo · · Score: 1

      Err, Apple released a computer in 1986 with a "Ensoniq ES5503 DOC 8-bit wavetable synthesis sound chip, 32-channels, stereo", "The ES5503 DOC is the same chip used in Ensoniq Mirage and Ensoniq ESQ-1 professional-grade synthesizers."
      This did upset Apple Records.
      Had other advanced features like a colour GUI at a time when the Mac was still black and white.
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    43. Re:So much venom by whit3 · · Score: 1

      It included Appletalk, which let you connect computers into a network using a cheap cable. The speed wasn't that great (basically a fast serial port), but it worked for transferring data between Macs.

      The Appletalk/Localtalk adapters came later (1989?); it was over 200kbaud, and much cheaper than Ethernet, and similar length limits. Third-party cable and adapters were common (I even built some).

      It wasn't just 'between Macs', there was localtalk for PCs and printers. It was a hot way to network laser printers (Apple's big profit item, for a few years).

      Mazewars, an Appletalk networked multiplayer game, was a lot of fun.

    44. Re:So much venom by tlhIngan · · Score: 1

      Xerox Parc and some other workstations at the time had the advanced GUIs. The NeXT computer came long after the Mac and was basically a simple competitor to other workstations.

      The Alta had a GUI, but it was not advanced. It didn't, for example, have overlapping windows. Alto windows were tiled at best.

      In fact, Wozniak racked his brains for a month trying to figure out how to do overlapping windows (and updating said windows) to come up with regions. He promptly got into an airplane crash and when Jobs went to visit Woz in the hospital, the first thing Woz said was "Don't worry, I still remember regions". Woz later asked Xerox about it and they said they didn't have overlapping windows.

      NeXT was created by Steve Jobs after he was ousted from Apple. He used it as an opportunity to re-do the Mac right

    45. Re:So much venom by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Overlapping windows isn't that big a deal. There was even a Linux window manager that avoided overlapping them. It was the "desktop" orientation that encourage treating windows like pieces of paper on a desk.

    46. Re:So much venom by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      Not to mention it was set up to allow the user to "multitask" but it wouldn't do pre-emptive multitasking itself...

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    47. Re: So much venom by Malc · · Score: 1

      The GUI was already popular long before Windows 95 came along. Amigas, Atari STs, Wintel running Win 3, OS/2 2.0 were all going full swing with GUIs, and text based apps like Word Perfect were basically an anachronism by the time Win 95 released.

      My first PC, an Amstrad PC1512, came with GEM Desktop, although without the trashcan that the Atari ST version had. This was somewhere between your Windows/286 (Windows 2.0) and Windows 3.0, the latter being when Microsoft started catching up with competition. Win95 was big because it revamped the UI, made the first break from Windows being no more than an app on top of MS-DOS and brought in more preemptive multitasking, although things like the resource limitations that made it start behaving weirdly and then crash helped maintain Microsoftâ(TM)s reputation for making toy operating systems.

    48. Re: So much venom by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      That wasn't because display ps. That was because horsepower. Macintosh didn't have accelerated graphics built in until quadra! And their accelerated graphics card for Macintosh II cost as much as a PC! Next machines had graphics acceleration. Back then they had Adobe applications for other Unix too, including framemaker, Photoshop, and illustrator. Iirc they had them for sun and SGI. All SGI machines have some kind of graphics acceleration, albeit minimal on older machines like the indigo, and sun offered accelerated video from way back though, like having graphics at all, it was an added-cost option. (Sun machines would operate just fine with a serial console and no framebuffer installed at all.)

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    49. Re:So much venom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      In fact, Wozniak racked his brains for a month trying to figure out how to do overlapping windows (and updating said windows) to come up with regions. He promptly got into an airplane crash and when Jobs went to visit Woz in the hospital, the first thing Woz said was "Don't worry, I still remember regions". Woz later asked Xerox about it and they said they didn't have overlapping windows.

      Woz didn't work on Mac system software. You're thinking of Bill Atkinson's car crash:

      https://www.folklore.org/StoryView.py?project=Macintosh&story=I_Still_Remember_Regions.txt

    50. Re:So much venom by niks42 · · Score: 1

      .. and it was probably licence terms for DPS that sent Apple off in the direction of using PDF instead. Adobe's terms were much more friendly for embedding.

    51. Re:So much venom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The NeXT Cube was basically Jobs's attempt to make good on the "3M" machine he didn't get to do at Apple.

      See: https://www.folklore.org/StoryView.py?project=Macintosh&story=Whats_A_Megaflop?.txt

    52. Re:So much venom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Except both of those were pinched from the Xerox Alto.

      Who, as others have pointed out, pinched them from Douglas Engelbart.

    53. Re:So much venom by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Not to mention it was set up to allow the user to "multitask" but it wouldn't do pre-emptive multitasking itself...

      Cooperative multitasking did suck, but it worked most of the time. Besides, home computers of the day didn't have enough RAM for serious multitasking of graphical applications. It wasn't until the next generation of them (Macintosh II, Amiga, 386 PCs) that this changed. Those first machines could only really handle running one "big" (for the time) program anyway. Hell, the Macintosh 128ke could barely handle that, they had to go to extraordinary lengths to accomplish it, coming up with a complicated binary format to permit big pieces of the program to be removed from memory and reloaded as necessary.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    54. Re: So much venom by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Win95 was big because it revamped the UI, made the first break from Windows being no more than an app on top of MS-DOS and brought in more preemptive multitasking, although things like the resource limitations that made it start behaving weirdly and then crash helped maintain MicrosoftÃ(TM)s reputation for making toy operating systems.

      Microsoft loves limitations. While Unix was architected for expansion from the start, DOS and Windows were always written to the limitations of the machine. Why bother to plan for the future when you can just sell the users another version, right? It worked for them, so I guess it was a good plan. Windows NT 3.51 for example only supported filesystems up to 2GB. That was a huge shame, because NT4 was where they merged the kernel and graphics memory spaces in order to improve graphics performance, and that's when NT's reliability went straight to hell since any application which abused the graphics system could crash the machine.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    55. Re:So much venom by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      I never really understood what Jobs insisted on it being portable, but he did.

      He insisted on having a built-in display because it made the cost of a computer+display less, and he didn't believe that the experience of using a computer on a television was satisfactory because he wanted square pixels. I tend to agree with that decision, BTW. I was an Amigan for a long time, and rectangular pixels suck rocks. Also, the other machine they were working on at the time was the Lisa, which also had a built-in monitor. (Lisa was later renamed Mac XL, and would run up to IIRC Macintosh System 5.)

      Once you build an all-in-one, you're an asshole if you don't put a handle on it. Luggables were also a relatively popular form factor at the time. They too had minuscule screens, my Kaypro 4 had a similar-size screen to a Macintosh... but it was text-only, and the terminal emulation was adm3a at that. It only scrolled in one direction, god it was terrible.

      Regular monitors at the time didn't have a way for the monitor to communicate its physical size and supported resolution back to the video card. So sticking with a fixed monitor was pretty much the only way they could do it for the first iteration. This is why Macs became ubiquitous in the publishing industry.

      Meh. Apple could have implemented something like DDC in their own monitors, and in the early days almost nobody used an Apple with a non-Apple monitor — even the bulk of Apple 2 systems were topped with an Apple display. They went so far as to reuse the DB15 connector which the rest of the world was using for ethernet (AUI) and then later had to add an expensive new ethernet connector to their machines so they wouldn't have a second DB15 back there (AAUI). If they were going to use a different connector anyway, they might as well use a different signal.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    56. Re: So much venom by jsepeta · · Score: 1

      The big fix that NextStep brought to the GUI was using display Postscript instead of QuickDraw, which meant what you see was REALLY what you get. Display and Printing would be much more similar after that, rather than 2 completely different systemns.

      --
      Remember kids, if you're not paying for the service, YOU ARE THE PRODUCT THAT IS BEING SOLD.
    57. Re:So much venom by jsepeta · · Score: 1

      Not that long after the Mac: 1990. But by Jobs stealing Apple's "Supermac" team, he set Apple's engineering back many years as they dorked aound with the less-impressive LC and Centris models.

      --
      Remember kids, if you're not paying for the service, YOU ARE THE PRODUCT THAT IS BEING SOLD.
    58. Re:So much venom by jsepeta · · Score: 1

      AppleTalk could use inexpensive phone cable instead of expensive serial cables. I installed Ethertalk (the CAT5 version) at a bunch of K-12 schools from 1991-93, while their Apple II labs were running phone-cable based Corvus networks, and their PC's were using LANtastic, phone cable based networks.

      Apple's Mac ran 4 channels of audio onboard at a time when PC's required sound cards and dicking around with IRQ's. the "Bong" chime when it booted was a chord; if RAM was bad or seated poorly, the chime played with the 4 notes separated.

      --
      Remember kids, if you're not paying for the service, YOU ARE THE PRODUCT THAT IS BEING SOLD.
    59. Re:So much venom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Alta had a GUI, but it was not advanced. It didn't, for example, have overlapping windows. Alto windows were tiled at best.

      The Alto DID have overlapping windows, as you will see if you do a Google image search for screenshots.

      What it didn't have was a way to keep track of the content of obscured windows, so you couldn't just drag windows around and redraw only the changed regions. You had to re-draw the whole screen.

    60. Re:So much venom by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      The Mac didn't multitask though, at least not until later when more memory was common. As such it could get away with less RAM.

      I'd argue that true pre-emptive multitasking was the bigger innovation. Graphics just got cheaper and many earlier machines were limited more by the affordable monitors of the time than by the availability of graphics hardware. Multitasking really made the desktop work as it was supposed to, as we know it now.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    61. Re:So much venom by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      A TV didn't prevent you having square pixels, and in fact the Amiga did support them with modes like 640x512 or 320x256.

      The problem with TVs was the poor picture quality, especially in the United States where RF was often the only option, and sometimes composite. In Europe we at least had RGB via SCART, although on most sets of the era 640 horizontal pixels was really pushing it.

      The other issue was that TVs needed interlace to do 512 vertical lines, where as monitors could support more than ~250 vertical lines with progressive scan.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    62. Re:So much venom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did not have much sound ability or ethernet.

      But in 1984, who did?

    63. Re:So much venom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Err, Apple released a computer in 1986 with a "Ensoniq ES5503 DOC 8-bit wavetable synthesis sound chip, 32-channels, stereo", "The ES5503 DOC is the same chip used in Ensoniq Mirage and Ensoniq ESQ-1 professional-grade synthesizers."
      This did upset Apple Records.
      Had other advanced features like a colour GUI at a time when the Mac was still black and white.
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      That feature (sampler chip), which was in the Apple IIgs, was one of the most underutilized peripherals in any computer, ever. Only about 1 Application actually supported it, although it was hands-down the most sophisticated sound hardware in any computer at the time.

      Of course, it didn't help that Ensoniq was basically Commodore, and we all know what happened to them...

    64. Re: So much venom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      IIRC, Apple had to do a system software hack for the Macintosh XL, a rebranded Lisa that did NOT have square pixels. :)

      Of course, there was no Ethernet option for Macs until the Mac II was released and offered expansion slots.

      3Com made the first Ethernet card for the Mac and it retailed for $595.

      Actually, the Macintosh XL mod was a combination hardware/software hack, and resulted in losing some pixels on the original Lisa.

      Interestingly, though, the Lisa had true Parallel ports, the only "Macintosh-era" Apple computer to do so.

    65. Re:So much venom by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      The Mac didn't multitask though, at least not until later when more memory was common. As such it could get away with less RAM.

      128k just wasn't even enough for one halfway decent graphical application, even at 1bpp, and with RLE of your PICTs.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    66. Re:So much venom by hawk · · Score: 1

      This urban legend gets repeated so often that most people think that it's true . . .

      The Lisa did *not* originate in that tour. *Prior* to the tour, it was already being designed with a graphical interface, and there were mockups of the tentative interface. These have been available on the web for decades, although the link that I used to use stopped working years ago.

      There were definitely changes made and design influences from the visit, an effect which should not be understated, but it is patently untrue that the Lisa design was inspired by the Alto.

      Also, it is almost always left out that the Alto itself in turnh had a *heavy* debt to Jeff Raskin's Master's thesis--and Raskin was one of the mac design engineers . . .

      hawk

    67. Re:So much venom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    68. Re:So much venom by dcw3 · · Score: 1

      My point wasn't so much that things couldn't be better with more RAM or pre-emptive multitasking, but in Sept '84, that wasn't something you'd find in a PC. Saying 512k "would have been a more reasonable place to start" would have been way above anything else available, and caused the price to be even more outrageous than it already was...~$2500 or around $6000 in today's dollars. And functionally, the products available for the 128k mostly worked fine.

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
    69. Re:So much venom by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      A TV didn't prevent you having square pixels, and in fact the Amiga did support them with modes like 640x512 or 320x256.

      It didn't prevent them, but it wasn't suited to them. And the Amiga did support them, but they didn't look good. At low resolutions they didn't appear square, and at high resolutions you had to interlace.

      The other issue was that TVs needed interlace to do 512 vertical lines, where as monitors could support more than ~250 vertical lines with progressive scan.

      Yeah, that. You just couldn't get good high-res video quality out of a TV back then. Today, using a TV as a monitor is a much better strategy.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    70. Re: So much venom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Citation needed/

    71. Re: So much venom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Unbeknownst to Raskin, Jobs had his own reasons for visiting PARC: Xerox's venture capital arm had recently made an investment in Apple, and had agreed to show Apple what was going on in its lab."
      https://web.stanford.edu/dept/SUL/sites/mac/parc.html

      "Xerox was anxious to get a piece of the action and was more than willing to allow an Apple contingent to take a peek at PARC. After all, an investment in Apple was likely to turn a handsome profit when the company eventually went public, whereas the stuff in the PARC labs was an intangible asset that would probably never make it to market—it had already languished for six years. Xerox signed an agreement never to purchase more than five percent of Apple's shares and invested $1 million by buying 100,000 shares at $10 each (within a year these split into 800,000 shares worth $17.6 million when Apple went public."
      https://books.google.com/books?id=mXnw5tM8QRwC&pg=PA75&dq=%22xerox+signed%22#v=onepage&q=%22xerox%20signed%22

    72. Re:So much venom by MachineShedFred · · Score: 1

      You don't have to have massive sales volume to bring new ideas to the marketplace. There are stacks of examples of this across every industry and market segment going back to the first guy who traded something for something else thousands of years ago.

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
    73. Re:So much venom by MachineShedFred · · Score: 1

      Pre-IPO investment opportunity in a darling company that ended up generating more capital during their IPO than any company since Ford.

      Damn, wish I could have gotten screwed like that. If Xerox got screwed by anybody, it was by themselves for:
      1. not bringing the Alto system to market themselves, instead being too focused on copy machines to realize they had invented the future and had it to themselves.
      2. not hanging on to the investment they did make in Apple, which would be worth 5x more than the IPO closing price (which was up 30% on that day) 10 years later.

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
    74. Re:So much venom by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      The Tandy 1000 was a start https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... with some color and sound AC :)

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    75. Re:So much venom by MachineShedFred · · Score: 1

      It wasn't Woz - it was Bill Atkinson who developed QuickDraw and "regions."

      What's funny is that he basically did it in his spare time to help out the Mac team, as he was a developer specifically assigned to Lisa during the Mac development.

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
    76. Re:So much venom by MachineShedFred · · Score: 1

      Nothing is "that big a deal" when it's already been done and you have orders of magnitude more computing power to play with.

      It was very much a big deal in the early days of GUI development.

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
    77. Re:So much venom by Megane · · Score: 1

      Adobe wanted way too much money for the license. It's one thing when you're making thousands of high-priced workstations, it's another when you're making millions of consumer computers. So Apple created Quartz, which was based on the PDF spec rather than Postscript. And it was also probably a good idea because my understanding is that DPS was too flexible (being a full programming language) and would let you do things that could hurt performance.

      --
      #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
    78. Re:So much venom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > The mac just brought those concepts to a wider audience really.

      Yes, by making it affordable ($2495!) when all other GUI machines were closer to $10,000.

      Mac doesn't get credit for having the first GUI, but it does get credit for being the first desktop PC (I consider the Lisa a workstation) with a GUI built into the OS. The first GUI most people saw in person was on a Mac.

    79. Re: So much venom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Unbeknownst to Raskin, Jobs had his own reasons for visiting PARC: Xerox's venture capital arm had recently made an investment in Apple, and had agreed to show Apple what was going on in its lab." https://web.stanford.edu/dept/SUL/sites/mac/parc.html

      "Xerox was anxious to get a piece of the action and was more than willing to allow an Apple contingent to take a peek at PARC.

      Wait a second - XEROX wanted Apple to see what they were doing to get more out of their investment? Doesn't that imply they basically told Jobs to take what he liked, because they knew he could actually sell that shit with some of the profit going back to them? How can anyone call that stealing?

    80. Re: So much venom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I guess it depends on your point of view. Adele Goldberg refused to give a Smalltalk demo to the Apple team because it would be "giving them the kitchen sink."

      She said she would only do it if management ordered her to, and they did. So for her, Apple was stealing Xerox's innovations, but with the tacit permission of the corporate heads.

    81. Re:So much venom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Other computers had great "square wave generator" working at that time...

      While the Mac "only" had 8-bit PWM audio - that could do more than just bleep-dood.

  4. Good 'ol Days ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Apple had a "special" disk copy software program that could copy a floppy
    in the minimum number of swaps (I forget the #) - it basically "took over"
    the CPU (remember, there was no kernel in those days, the OS loaded
    from floppy each time) and was a dedicated OS just to copy a floppy.
    I think you could do the same thing in the Finder, but it was a long process.

    I don't think I'll ever completely forget the sound of the multi-speed floppy
    as it booted the OS. It always sounded the same - you could tell if something
    was "off" if it didn't play its tune properly! Those were simpler times and days...

    Also, pretty sure Cook is wrong about the 35 years, no way could that much
    time have passed. I think he means 10 years. Yeah, that's it, it was only 10
    years ago. I feel better now ...

    And BTW, they were programs back then - not apps! Apps were for sissies!

    CAP === 'copying' <== I swear, this was the captcha!!!

    1. Re:Good 'ol Days ... by _merlin · · Score: 1

      They were always called "applications" on Macintosh. It's even reflected in the type code "APPL" used for applications.

    2. Re: Good 'ol Days ... by cpt+kangarooski · · Score: 1

      The slow disk copying (at least after a decent amount of RAM was finally available) was apparently the result of a bug.

      --
      -- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
  5. Man, I'm old by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can't believe I was 15 and had already developed a disdain for Apple and preference for the "open" IBM PC.

    1. Re: Man, I'm old by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was 23 years old and all of us compsci engineering majors vastly preferred the apple 2 for prototyping interfacing etc.

      Was a while before the hacking community got in to the guts of ibm compatibles.

      Of course the closed off walled garden Mac was a non starter. Computers for dummies.

    2. Re: Man, I'm old by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whenever a new game came out I used to hover by the cashier and I never let them bag the game I would take it home myself and I had to be the first to put the floppy in and boot up the PC. Everyone rolled their eye but I guess that is just my personality you had to be there

    3. Re:Man, I'm old by guruevi · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      Lol, the IBM PC wasn't open until Compaq came along and reverse engineered the BIOS. Then IBM came with the PS/2, with it's proprietary keyboard/mouse connectors and later on MCA bus.

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    4. Re:Man, I'm old by Cmdln+Daco · · Score: 1

      The IBM was open. You could buy the Technical Reference Manual from IBM. It had full schematic diagrams of every bit of the hardware, including the floppy diskette drive and power supply. The expansion slots were intended from the start to host third party interface addons.

      The commented BIOS source code was even published in the Technical Reference Manual. It wasn't 'open source' in the modern sense, but every bit of the design was open and disclosed.

    5. Re:Man, I'm old by dryeo · · Score: 1

      The Apple II was similar, at least at first. I think the schematics and ROM source was included in the box. Of course the floppy drive came a bit later and was an interesting hack.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    6. Re:Man, I'm old by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      The PS/2 mouse connector was proprietary, but the keyboard port wasn't. It's just the same old AT keyboard on a Mini-DIN instead of a DIN. Unfortunately, they used the same connector, and you couldn't interchange the connectors on PS/2s, nor their successors (PS/Valuepoint). The only motherboards I know of where they are interchangeable are Intel (as in their own motherboards, not just boards for their CPUs), and I'm not sure which. I remember being able to plug them in wrong and have them work anyway around the Pentium MMX period. But perhaps there are also others, and I just haven't encountered them... I used to work for the county of Santa Cruz and we had an all-IBM network at the time with IBM mainframes which I had nothing to do with in the courthouse basement, and PS/2s at the various sites, naturally all on token ring. Departments used netware 3 for file services. PS/2s sucked rocks and the MCA bus was stupid. Apple had autoconfiguration on NuBus and Amiga had that and a cheap cardedge connector on Zorro, although Zorro was slow AF until Zorro III so maybe I should leave them out of it :)

      UGH, PS/2s. I need some air.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    7. Re:Man, I'm old by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The PS/2 mouse connector was proprietary, but the keyboard port wasn't.

      Myth - unless your definition of non-proprietary includes patents.

    8. Re:Man, I'm old by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      PS: that's not the only thing in the "open" IBM PC that was patented - down to the snarling noise the disk drive made on start-up (http://www.freepatentsonline.com/4773036.html)

      https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=de&u=https://www.heise.de/ct/artikel/PC-Schrauber-zur-Kasse-284482.html&prev=search

  6. Ah...the good ol' days! by DidgetMaster · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    When people of modest means could start a successful software company with a great idea. All you needed to get version 1.0 out was something that kind of worked better than everything else. You could get enough revenues to support the development of improved versions and grow into a booming company. Today, you need massive amounts of cash to develop because every customer demands features A to Z, enterprise scalability, and rock solid testing before they will even look at it. It has turned into a game that only the big boys can play.

    1. Re:Ah...the good ol' days! by ledow · · Score: 0

      Not really... the gameplan just shifted focus, that's all.

      Make a website in Javascript / Python / whatever that chats with other users, and the same happens.

      It's always a rare event. Millions of home-computer-creators never were successful monetising their businesses. It's literally just down to luck. Still is. There are millions of crappy websites, but Facebook, Twitter, Tumblr, etc. all got lucky.

      Not to mention things like large open-source projects, etc.

      The things you talk about are the one-in-a-million events. They're still happening. Just not in the same areas, because things like enterprise scalability in most regions people want them are already available (thus you have competition above your level), but there's always niche projects and places where there is no direct competition.

    2. Re:Ah...the good ol' days! by Darinbob · · Score: 0

      No one tests as they should now. The goal of startups is to get bought out fast rather than develop a serious long term product. The time pressures to release a demo every Friday means you can't waste time on quality.

    3. Re:Ah...the good ol' days! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not really... the gameplan just shifted focus, that's all.

      Make a website in Javascript / Python / whatever that chats with other users, and the same happens.

      Of course that means instead of selling your application you now sell your user's data.

  7. Re:It was an expensive piece of shit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You're being silly. Windows was always an attempt to recreate Apple's GUI, which is essentially Xerox's GUI. The fact that we're using that same basic framework today proves it changed the world on a pretty broad level. Go back to DOS.

  8. Fruitylicous by ArthurVandelay9092 · · Score: 1

    And theyâ(TM)ve made it a pleasant experience for people who refuse to geek.

  9. "1984" by PineHall · · Score: 2

    I think the commerical announcing the Mac was one the best commericals ever, if not the best. I remembered it well even though it would be many many years later before I saw the commercial again.

    1. Re:"1984" by nukenerd · · Score: 1

      I found it patronising.

    2. Re:"1984" by Solandri · · Score: 0

      The irony is that the conformist monoculture controlled by a single authority that the commercial was rallying against, describes iOS, with its walled garden and uniform device design, to a T.

    3. Re:"1984" by Cmdln+Daco · · Score: 1

      I remember back when the first Macintoshes with hard drives made by IBM came out and the Mac fanatics opened their cases and discovered it. This was long after IBM had ceded the PC market to the PC cloners, but to Macintosh zealots 'IBM' was still the enemy. They referred to 'IBM' computers in much the same way that Amish people refer to all non-Amish people as 'English.'

    4. Re: "1984" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You found it patronizing because it hit home.

      You were a slave to the computer at the time. Apple changed the game.

    5. Re: "1984" by nukenerd · · Score: 1

      You were a slave to the computer at the time. Apple changed the game.

      And Apple users are not slaves to the iPhone/iPad ? Looking back at that Macintosh commercial, the queue of grey zombies marching forward makes me think now of the over-night queues of fans outside Apple shops when a new iPhone/iPad is being launched, some of them having sold their souls or kidneys to be there. Their previous model has been slowed down by remote control by Apple's software department, and their minds are remote controlled by Apple's marketing department. 1984 indeed.

    6. Re: "1984" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > 1984 indeed

      Nah it's more Brave New World. ^_^

  10. Memory by dcw3 · · Score: 2

    Article is incorrect about "That 128KB was resolutely not upgradable". I personally upgraded my own.

    --
    Just another day in Paradise
    1. Re:Memory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      I think they mean at launch...but Apple did offer a "Mac Plus" upgrade kit later for $995. Steve Jobs was against it:

      "Even though the diagnostic port was scuttled, it wasn't the last attempt at surreptitious hardware expandability. When the Mac digital board was redesigned for the last time in August 1982, the next generation of RAM chips was already on the horizon. The Mac used 16 64Kbit RAM chips, giving it 128K of memory. The next generation chip was 256Kbits, giving us 512K bytes instead, which made a huge difference.

      "Burrell was afraid the 128Kbyte Mac would seem inadequate soon after launch, and there were no slots for the user to add RAM. He realized that he could support 256Kbit RAM chips simply by routing a few extra lines on the PC board, allowing adventurous people who knew how to wield a soldering gun to replace their RAM chips with the newer generation. The extra lines would only cost pennies to add.

      "But once again, Steve Jobs objected, because he didn't like the idea of customers mucking with the innards of their computer. He would also rather have them buy a new 512K Mac instead of them buying more RAM from a third-party. But this time Burrell prevailed, because the change was so minimal. He just left it in there and no one bothered to mention it to Steve, much to the eventual benefit of customers, who didn't have to buy a whole new Mac to expand their memory."

      https://www.folklore.org/StoryView.py?project=Macintosh&story=Diagnostic_Port.txt

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

      My Mac is 36 years old. My sister was an Apple salesperson, and my father bought me one in 1983 for Christmas - before the 1984 Superbowl commercial. The signatures of the developers are embedded in the plastic on the inside of the case.

      The Imagewriter printer was an additional $700, and we even purchased a blue case to haul it in.

      We later upgraded it to a Mac Plus, replacing the motherboard, and added a second floppy drive and a 9600 baud modem. RAM was $99 for one megabyte back then. Damn thing got me through college.

      It still works today, and I can program a Cisco router using Kermit and the serial port.

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

      Not only that but 128K was a lot at the time of launch. The IBM PC range started at 16K though ISTR that most people bought the 64K version.

    4. Re: Memory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your parents must have been rich.

    5. Re:Memory by ScooterComputer · · Score: 1

      This is the exact FolkLore page I came back, days later, to see if it had gotten posted. The blurb "was absolutely not upgradeable" didn't sit well with me, knowing the FolkLore story. Burrell Smith was a certifiable genius, like Woz before him; and that statement just is too rigid and unfairly underplays Smith's design. I'm glad somebody posted the FolkLore page.

      But to Burrell Smith and Steve Wozniak, and Brian Howard, and Bill Atkinson and Andy Hertzfeld and Bruce Horn and Steve Capps, and Bud Tribble, and Joanna Hoffman and Susan Kare, and Jef Raskin, and on and on, the early Mac team names should be household names in the US. These folks all were certifiable geniuses. Only, now everybody knows Steve Jobs. Just Steve Jobs. I hear so many wrong Steve Jobs stories it is almost incredible. From adults, from kids. It pains me that the public Oral History of computing is as screwed up as it apparently is. But, especially in this one case, the Macintosh RAM, Burrell Smith especially deserves better than "was absolutely not upgradeable", and more over he deserves that his accomplishments be better known to the technologist culture.

      (As an aside, it also worries me greatly that the 'veil of secrecy' that "new" "2nd coming of Jobs" Apple has hidden itself behind has largely also served to completely destroy any chance that we, the lovers of such FolkLore, will ever find out the names and personalities behind more recent Apple successes. We've heard of a few names, like Avie Tevanian and Jon Rubenstein and Tony Fadell and Scott Forstall, but they have even mostly been papered over by a nearly cult-like projection of Jony Ive as the sole "Wizard" behind the curtain. Apple Execs like Craig Federighi and Phil Schiller instead get stage time, though Kevin Lynch has been getting some time too. Even if you read Apple's marketing, you'd think Angela Ahrends and Tim Cook are in the trenches inventing stuff which just completely belies what we know of how the process actually works from reading stories like FolkLore. We wonder why kids don't run into STEM? Maybe its because the "Rock Stars" are seemingly all people who don't actually play the instruments, they just lip sync acceptably and can line dance really good after enough practice.)

      --
      Scott
      "Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid."
    6. Re:Memory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Burrell Smith was a certifiable genius

      Funny you should put it that way. :)

    7. Re:Memory by Megane · · Score: 1

      A company called Levco made a "Monster Mac" board which could expand the 128K to 2 megabytes. A local guy was doing those upgrades, and I got one, probably in '86. It was pretty amazing having 2 megabytes of memory when 512K was the thing. I loved running that thing with a 1.5 megabyte ramdisk, and even wrote my own ramdisk program.

      The upgrade basically entailed first upgrading the computer to 512K the hard way (clip the RAM chips, desolder their pins, toss chips in bin, add little board with extra mux chip), and certain chips were socketed (I think it was the 68000) to accomodate a daughter board full of sockets for 3x512K. They also made a SCSI interface which sandwiched under a ROM chip. And I had already gotten the upgraded Mac Plus ROMs, so I was ready with HFS while Hyperdrive users were seething trying to scramble to find some.

      The upgrade also came with a little peizo fan that looked like a fat clothespin, with two vibrating plastic strips sticking up. And the guy also fixed my analog board when it inevitably failed. There was a non-polarized electrolytic rated at 12V or something, and when it failed, orange smoke came out of the computer. He replaced it with a big mylar thing with twice the voltage rating.

      --
      #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
  11. Where's my new Mac Pro full-size workstation? by sandbagger · · Score: 2

    I want a box I can put multiple video cards, half a dozen hard drives and several PCI cards in.

    It will have a very busy, high heat duty cycle so nothing with laptop parts, please. It's going to be using all of the electricity that comes out of the wall so give me a box that can move a lot of air through it.

    My Mac Pro 5,1s are hanging on but I can use a refresh. Currently nothing, nothing in the Mac line up is anything close to a replacement and please don't suggest that using EGPUs makes sense on a desktop machine.

    I want a new full sized tower for heavy lifting.

    --
    ---- The above post was generated by the Turing Institute. Maybe.
    1. Re:Where's my new Mac Pro full-size workstation? by Stormwatch · · Score: 1

      MacRumors said the new Pro will come out this year and will be again modular and easily upgradable.

    2. Re:Where's my new Mac Pro full-size workstation? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Modular and easily upgradable mean something totally different to apple.

    3. Re:Where's my new Mac Pro full-size workstation? by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      The faster iMac and an external GPU was the limit to innovation.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    4. Re:Where's my new Mac Pro full-size workstation? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      I want a box I can put multiple video cards, half a dozen hard drives and several PCI cards in.

      Sorry buddy, this doesn't fit with Apples "Dongle" aesthetic. You are supposed to buy a MacBook Pro and a Thunderbolt dock, with a chain of Thunderbolt HDDs and external GPUs hung off that. The longer the chain the better, and ideally you will have a few additional USB chains with hubs and more dongles on them.

      Your computer just doesn't cut it if it doesn't have multiple huge dong(le)s.

      I want a new full sized tower for heavy lifting.

      Surely dumbbells are cheaper and more durable.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    5. Re:Where's my new Mac Pro full-size workstation? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Realistically I think your best option may be Linux and/or Windows 10 Pro.

  12. My biggest mistake by rossdee · · Score: 1

    was buying a Mac
    in '85 I bought a 'Fat Mac''
    I spent about NZ$10,000
    (a rich uncle had left me some money)
    in '88 I sold it to pay for a down payment on a laser printer

    What was wrong with the Mac?

    Not enough buttons on the mouse
    Not enough keys on the keyboard
    Not enough colors on the screen
    (screen too small)
    zero expandablity

    and the local apple dealer wouldn't sell games

    From '86 until I left NZ in 2002 I owned Amiga computer(s)

    1. Re:My biggest mistake by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Amiga Rules :-)

  13. Parent poster is an M$ astroturfer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Good to see M$ is still at astroturfing. Winblows has always been irrelevant and bad, yet most use it as they think they have no choice due to brainwashing by M$. M$ has never changed as free software is being embraced by M$ only to extend and extinguish it to replace it with non-free software.

    --
    Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
    Friends do assist M$ addicted friends in committing suicide.

    1. Re:Parent poster is an M$ astroturfer by crow · · Score: 0

      WTF?

      Just because I don't remember details about a nearly 20-year-old unpopular OS you accuse me of astroturfing? And after I pointed out that I didn't use it because I was already using Linux? And from someone who isn't an anonymous coward who has been here forever? You're nuts.

  14. Mac prices... by rnturn · · Score: 0

    ... put them out of reach for many people. We got one in our university engineering research group--probably through a grant. The only people using it were students that wanted to play around with the graphics capability in order to gen up a fancier version of a paper. We had a later Mac version (one of the big desktop systems---not the Banana Junior 6000 types) that our draftperson used to create drawings, graphs, plots, etc. for papers we put out. Same deal---likely bought as part of a grant or departmental hardware budget.

    The other affect on prices was what happened to peripherals that were used mainly by Macophiles. I needed a SCSI disk drive in those days to hang off a SBC we were going to use for data collection. Because Macs users seemed to have money to burn, I wound up eating upwards of $600 for a 20MB hard drive (that, IIRC, cost more than what we had paid for the 200MB discs we put in Microvaxes)---and I had to look high and low to even get pricing that low. Most mail order outfits suppliers were charging well above that.

    --
    CUR ALLOC 20195.....5804M
    1. Re:Mac prices... by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Yep, the Amiga would have died a heck of a lot sooner if the Mac had been cheaper, but it was ghastly expensive. My mother had a Macintosh IIci for her DTP work, she had got it through an Apple employee so it came at a substantial discount. That meant that for a IIci with no cache card, 5MB RAM, 8*24 non-GC display card, and the Macintosh Two-Page Mono Display it was a bit over $5,000. I (eventually) had an Amiga 2500, while she was still using that. Same MC68030@25, I had 6MB RAM, and my HD controller had both MFM and SCSI interfaces — though you could only boot off the SCSI, not the MFM. Also, my machine had an internal 5.25" half-height bay. That let me use used MFM disks instead of SCSI ones, and since I lived near Seagate I was able to get those at $1/MB.

      That two-page mono display was beautiful, though. Square pixels, paper white... Back then you really got more when you bought a Mac. Then PC clone hardware came in a deluge (around the 486 era) and none of that stuff was special any more. You could spend as much as you wanted on a PC, and get the same kind of quality or even better, and it would still be cheaper and faster. And the 68040 was too expensive, and the '060 too late.

      Apple should have either switched to x86 much sooner, or gone to ARM instead. POWER turned out to be a waste of time and money. The Newton was ARM6-based, and they probably could have gone down that road for the post-Quadra machines. Apple could have been all-ARM by now. Probably better for all of us that didn't happen though, given what ARM is today.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    2. Re:Mac prices... by Megane · · Score: 1

      The Newton was crap until they got XScale CPUs. They started with 25MHz or so, and the XScale was like 250MHz. That was just when Newton started to get usable, so of course that was when they decided to toss it. Except for the Beeb and XScale days, until this decade, ARM had just never been a performance architecture, it was all about low power.

      POWER wasn't inherently bad, the problem was that Motorola wanted to make low-power embedded chips (which ARM would later kill them in) hobbled with a slow front-side bus, and IBM wanted to make high-end workstation/mini-mainframe chips that needed liquid cooling (forget using them in a laptop).

      And Intel had a lot of problems of their own, remember the Pentium 4? The Intel Mac came just as Core architecture started. Imagine the fun of having a Pentium 4 in a Mac.

      --
      #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
    3. Re:Mac prices... by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      "The Newton was crap until they got XScale CPUs. They started with 25MHz or so, and the XScale was like 250MHz."

      The earlier ARM processors used in Newtons had similar IPC to 68k, so they didn't have far to go to be more powerful than what they had already. But xscale would have been an acceptable basis. Its power consumption was never competitive with other ARM implementations, but that doesn't matter on the desktop - it was still lower than just about everything else.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  15. Re: 35 years, and not much has changed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My new Mac laptop has 4 USB ports.

  16. My Mac memories by imperious_rex · · Score: 0

    I remember seeing the first wave of ads in magazines for the Mac in 1984, with the tagline "The computer for the rest of us." Being the snarky C64 user at the time, I liked to append "Who can afford it." to that tagline in my mind. With a decent Mac setup costing around $2,000 (in 1984 dollars!), it was insanely expensive and nobody in high school had one. It was certainly not aimed at lower middle class teen peons like me who could only afford a Commodore, Atari, Tandy, or TI home computer (hell, even CrApple 8-bit computers were crazy expensive compared to competing 8-bit machines at the time).

    It wasn't until my first year of college in 1985-86 that I first encountered somebody with a Mac. Of course that somebody was a dorm roommate who proved to be a dick, and I was glad to part ways with him by the end of the school year.

    It wasn't until 1994 that I bought a Mac, which was a refurbed Mac Color Classic. I only got it to learn how to use a Mac, as I was gunning for a job working in pre-press at a print shop. I found a different job (web development work) and then sold the Mac a couple years later. That was the only Mac I ever owned.

    There are few times in one's life when one can take just one look at a new technology and immediately know that this it's a game changer and is the future. The debut of the Mac was one of those moments, as was the Web, and iPhone.

    1. Re:My Mac memories by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are few times in one's life when one can take just one look at a new technology and immediately know that this it's a game changer and is the future. The debut of the Mac was one of those moments

      It's funny, I remember being distinctly unimpressed when I saw the Mac for the first time at a local electronics store. :)

      For one, it had a tiny screen and no color. I was already used to having color on the Apple II, and the GUI was similar to software I had already been using on the Apple II like Graphics Magician - as a video gamer, I knew what could be done with graphics and animation and the Mac, aside from its crisp, high-res b/w screen, fell short. I didn't understand at the time how much RAM would have been required for a bigger, color screen!

      I remember playing with it and quitting from MacPaint, opening MacWrite, playing with that, and quitting it. I then asked the salesman how to quit the GUI and go back to a command line.

      "How do you quit this?" I asked.
      "Quit what?" he said.
      "This program...with the menus and trash can."
      "Oh, that's called the Finder. You can't quit that, it's always running."
      "Well, that's dumb!" :)

    2. Re:My Mac memories by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My experience of the mac.

      1. It was slowwwwwww
      2. Not enough ram
      3. No hard drive
      4. Screen was nice but tiny in size

      Eventually 2 through 4 got addressed but 1 was still the case until powerpc

      There was a long while where mac's were actually the machines owned by the clueless. PCs were way faster and better value. If you wanted to do serious work you used a RISC workstation.

      There are still a few people who like Macs, and the walled garden. Many of the friends I have who like Macs like macs because they are wannabe people. The sort of person who would buy something expensive to look successful. It's like a person who buys a 4000 buck divers watch rated for a bazillion bar but only snorkels.

      The classic macsos was kinda cool, and it was popular with Pascal programmers. Clued up people who didn't want to go PC bought STs (way faster vs classic macs and way better value for money) or Amigas which had Jay Miners brilliant hardware for color and sound and an awesome OS.

    3. Re:My Mac memories by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I should have said acquaintances for the most part not friends. Although I have a. Couple of friends who love Apple. They are not rich either which makes it weirder

    4. Re:My Mac memories by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, similar for me, except almost nobody had hard drives when the original Mac came out. I didn't actually get to use a PC with a hard drive until 1988.

      I really wanted an Amiga but couldn't afford one. Still, I thought Apple should have taken one look at the Amiga and said, "okay, from this point on ALL our machines have to be at least this good!" They didn't step up to the challenge.

      A few years later I warmed up to the Mac after it had caught up in graphics and speed. My boss was an Apple nut and he bought a Mac II FX and that thing was NOT slow by any means!

      I didn't see it as elitist or dumbed-down, it was more like a turnkey solution for people who wanted to get work done rather than dick around with IRQ settings and so forth. Of course you had to pay for the convenience. Some aspects of the Mac were YEARS ahead of anything on the PC... long file names, drag-and-drop installation, multiple monitors... I could go on. :)

    5. Re:My Mac memories by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      It's funny, I remember being distinctly unimpressed when I saw the Mac for the first time at a local electronics store. :)

      I was super-impressed the first time I saw a Macintosh, but admittedly it was a Mac Plus. I had a C= 16 at home, and had used various Apple IIs at a couple of different schools, as well as the IBM PC Jr. Then I went to Jr. High and they had the one Mac Plus in a lab full of Apple 2s plus one Laser 128k, and the experience of using the GUI was amazing in comparison. Then I got an Amiga 500, and started throwing rocks at Macs...

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  17. Embrace of GUI needed consumers and developers by perpenso · · Score: 5, Interesting

    A lot of people failed to understand the Mac at the beginning but the friendly and attractive and intuitive interface really caught on.

    Yes and no. There was quite a bit of Apple evangelism going on. GUI did not necessarily just catch on in 1984, Apple worked hard to see that it did. Surely GUI would eventually catch on but with 1984 tech maybe a push was necessary.

    Keep in mind that the embrace of the GUI had to occur both with the consumer and the developer. Apple was very smart in this regard. As a published Apple ][ developer we were automatically accepted into the Mac developer program. This gave us early access to the Mac at a reduced cost.

    Several months before Apple sent us our Mac we were sent the documentation. A big part of that first delivery of the documentation was basically the evangelism convincing us to go GUI, to *not* just emulate a 40x25 or 80x25 text display and port our software directly. Being deprived of hardware and incredibly excited and curious we read everything Apple sent us. For all I know this may be the only time in history where indie developers sat down and thoroughly read the documentation before writing any code. :-) It was an incredibly wise move by Apple IMHO.

  18. Win3.1 not 95 changed PC world by perpenso · · Score: 2

    No. Windows 3.1 changed the PC world, that is where the PC world decided to go GUI. Windows 95 is merely where people said this is almost as good as a Mac. Mac OS was quite a bit crufty by the Win95 era. MS had WinNT which was far ahead of Mac OS. Apple did not get good again until Mac OS X.

    1. Re:Win3.1 not 95 changed PC world by Cmdln+Daco · · Score: 1

      Apple spent many millions of dollars trying to produce an in-house operating system that had pre-emptive multitasking. The MacOS before OS X was a dismal kludge. Eventually, they gave up and let NeXT take them over and bring in a Unix clone.

    2. Re:Win3.1 not 95 changed PC world by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mac OS 8 and 9 sucked, but this is what the iMac launched with and I believe that was successful still. e.g. people bought it to get a computer that goes on the Internet.

    3. Re:Win3.1 not 95 changed PC world by perpenso · · Score: 1

      Apple spent many millions of dollars trying to produce an in-house operating system that had pre-emptive multitasking. The MacOS before OS X was a dismal kludge. Eventually, they gave up and let NeXT take them over and bring in a Unix clone.

      Its not a clone, its a certified Unix based on BSD. ;-)

    4. Re:Win3.1 not 95 changed PC world by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm still kind of dumbfounded by this.

      Linux was just being ported to the Mac in 1994...the BSDI/AT&T case was settled so the code was unencumbered. Apple was switching to PowerPC for which there was a ready-made IBM Unix (AIX).

      All the indicators were pointing in the direction of Unix as the way to go. So WHY did Apple insist on rolling their own (Copland)??

      They could have taken BSD, ported it to the PowerPC Mac, and done all the stuff they later did on top of NeXTSTEP but 6 years earlier. And it wouldn't have cost them $427 million.

      Was it pride? Hubris? Institutional inertia? NIH? Managerial incompetence?

    5. Re:Win3.1 not 95 changed PC world by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Its not a clone, its a certified Unix based on BSD. ;-)

      You do realize NeXTSTEP, Mach and BSD were created before POSIX/Single Unix Specification were published, right?

      BSD is a Unix clone. Berkeley programmers re-implemented Unix interfaces in free code, exactly like GNU did. Calling it "Unix" now is a branding thing, the code itself contains no Unix!

    6. Re:Win3.1 not 95 changed PC world by niks42 · · Score: 1

      Windows succeeded because it was a whole lot easier for application developers to code for one interface - the Windows GDI rather than a whole host of graphical device drivers for this or that video adapter, each with their own extensions to the standard devices. IBM had launched the VGA and standardised a 256 color display of reasonable resolution, but there were many flavors of extensions - line drawing engines, BLT, area fill, alpha overlays, hardware cursors, video overlays, multiple resolutions and color depths. Since the device manufacturers were given the task of writing a device driver for their hardware to present a DDI to Windows, that took away from the app developers the need to write bunches of code to exploit unique features. Windows 3.1 was successful because of the 32-bit API, and avoiding having to write two lots of device drivers, one for 286 and one for 386.

    7. Re:Win3.1 not 95 changed PC world by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Its not a clone, its a certified Unix based on BSD. ;-)

      Yet most of the BSD utilities are crippled in functionality compared to GNU/Linux versions of those utilities.

    8. Re:Win3.1 not 95 changed PC world by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      IBM had launched the VGA and standardised a 256 color display of reasonable resolution

      The original VGA only provided 256 colors at 320x200 (or 320x240 'Mode X' for the hackers). Its high-resolution 640x480 mode only allowed for 16 colors.

      However, by the time Windows 3.0 launched, Super-VGA cards were relatively common.

    9. Re: Win3.1 not 95 changed PC world by tigersha · · Score: 1

      Next was owned by Steve and he was, at the time, fired from Apple

      --
      The dangers of excessive individualism are nothing compared to the oppressiveness of excessive collectivism
    10. Re: Win3.1 not 95 changed PC world by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Such as...

    11. Re:Win3.1 not 95 changed PC world by perpenso · · Score: 1

      Did you mean WinNT 3.1? Win 3.x was 16-bit. We didn't get a clean 32-bit environment until WinNT. Win9x was a 16/32-bit hybrid environment, I'm not sure if drivers were 32-bit.

  19. Re:It was an expensive piece of shit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Exactly this, The world was just fine with out and will continue be fine long after apple is gone.

  20. Should have by AHuxley · · Score: 0

    Gone full Apple computer.
    With a faster CPU. Color. GPU. Ethernet. Much better sound.
    Games and networked business software.
    The set Macintosh cost and sound, graphics, speed, lack of networking held computing design back for years.

    --
    Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    1. Re:Should have by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If it had all those things it would have been another $10,000 failure just right after the Lisa.

    2. Re:Should have by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      The set Macintosh cost and sound, graphics, speed, lack of networking held computing design back for years.

      It did nothing of the sort. At its peak Apple had something like 8% of desktop market share. It never held anything back. Microsoft, on the other hand, legitimately did hold back computing by doing things like abusing their monopoly position in a variety of ways, and funding SCO v. Linux.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  21. 6.5in WYSIWYG, no problem, 1in margins by perpenso · · Score: 1

    6.5" was not a problem, you just put a 1" margin on both the left and right.

    For something as formal as a thesis where the right probably needs to be 1/2" one would do the writing and digital proofreading with a 1" margin then when happy change the margin to 1/2" print and do the hard copy proofreading.

    I know this sounds awkward but the alternative was a text based editor, or gasp a typewriter. The margin kludge was the least painful of the options. :-)

  22. Anyone else remember MegaSreen, MegaDrive? by JoeSilva · · Score: 1

    Back in the 80s I worked for a small company doing upgrades to the original Mac. It was a glorious hack, add an extra board and a hard drive.

    1. Re:Anyone else remember MegaSreen, MegaDrive? by JoeSilva · · Score: 1
  23. Lost Opportunity by imisshypercard · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I always felt Jobs missed an obvious opportunity by not incorporating Hypercard into MacOS ala smallTalk with the Xerox Alto. There was discussion of doing this, but Jobs made a poor decision and eventually canned the whole program. Not everything he did was "visionary".

    1. Re:Lost Opportunity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Evidently Steve Jobs held a grudge against Bill Atkinson, who decided to stay at Apple rather than join the NeXT team!

    2. Re:Lost Opportunity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I would have loved to have a networked HyperCard incorporating the best features of QuickTime and FileMaker Pro... that would have been amazing.

      Apple could have invented the WWW years before Tim Berners Lee!

    3. Re:Lost Opportunity by imisshypercard · · Score: 1

      Nothing to stop Apple from making this happen today. But sadly, this kind of innovation has long left the company.

    4. Re:Lost Opportunity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There was an interview with Jobs in his later years (I believe it was done during the 2000s) where he lamented missing the networked hypercard concept. His comment was something like the following. "When I visited the Xerox PARC, they showed me three amazing things: the graphical user interface, object-oriented programming, and Ethernet. I was so amazed by the graphical user interface and object-oriented programming that I ignored the significance of Ethernet."

    5. Re:Lost Opportunity by imisshypercard · · Score: 1

      While Jobs was enamored with the aesthetics of a GUI, I doubt he fully grasped the potential of object-oriented programming, (though the programmers at Apple most certainly did, it was relegated to the 'nerd' level, content with it being attached to traditional languages and their derivatives - Pascal & C.) At least Dan Winkler's team had a different vision with Hypertalk. An OOP language for the rest of us.

    6. Re:Lost Opportunity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      > While Jobs was enamored with the aesthetics of a GUI, I doubt he fully grasped the potential of object-oriented programming

      He admits as much in Cringely's "lost interview," but he caught on later when he started NeXT. I don't know who talked him into using Objective-C, but they ran with it and built their whole software product line on OOP.

  24. MacXL by JoeSilva · · Score: 1

    My first Mac program was developed on the MacXL, I think it was a repurposed Lisa. The program was used at CSUN for some psychology experiments.,

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

      What did you write it in?

  25. Re:35 years, and not much has changed by AHuxley · · Score: 1

    External GPU.

    --
    Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  26. Re:35 years, and not much has changed by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

    Oh, I did not know there are Mac users that stupid that they throw away a three year old Mac.
    I hope I can apply somewhere so they better hand them over to me?

    --
    Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
  27. Re: 35 years, and not much has changed by Cmdln+Daco · · Score: 1

    One of which needs to be utilized for the charger cord. And they are USB-C connectors, because Apple prefers that people use a dongle to connect their garden-variety USB-A Flash drives. And a dongle to read their SD cards, connect their legacy scanner, etc. etc.

  28. Yes popularized by SuperKendall · · Score: 2

    But "popularized"? The Mac is at its most popular today, and it's still a small niche.

    Even if you believe the fantasy that the Mac is a "Small Niche" (with north of a hundred million of desktop Mac units sold over the years), just the fact that Windows has borrowed a lot from the Mac over the years means that yes, in fact, the Mac was responsible for many GUI ideas being popularized... look at the Windows GUI pre and post Mac.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:Yes popularized by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Where can I see the Windows GUI pre-Mac?

    2. Re:Yes popularized by houghi · · Score: 1

      Microsoft paid Apple a lot of money to save them, so they should get something in return

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    3. Re:Yes popularized by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      $150 million, which isn't a lot of money once we're dealing with companies as large as those two!

    4. Re:Yes popularized by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's called MS-DOS you retard.

    5. Re:Yes popularized by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > It's called MS-DOS you retard.

      Apart from the fact that DOS isn't Windows, and it doesn't have a GUI, you mean?

      Glad to see you're ramping up that brainpower.

    6. Re:Yes popularized by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Look at the MacOS GUI pre and post Amiga OS. Both of which were influenced by Xerox. At the time they were all feeding off each other.

      Speaking of influence, I'd say the single most influential GUI element was the start button. As much as we mocked it when Windows 95 came out, it's been widely copied. Followed by the Android notification shade, which was quickly copied by iOS and then desktop operating systems (Windows 10 has one that comes in from the right, I think MacOS has "toast" or something, many Linux desktops too).

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    7. Re:Yes popularized by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Look at the MacOS GUI pre and post Amiga OS.

      Ok, here is Mac System 1.1 (1984):
      http://toastytech.com/guis/mac11deskicons.gif

      Here is System 7 (1991) in black and white mode:
      https://archive.org/serve/AppleMacintoshSystem701/00_screenshot.png

      I'm trying hard to see any significant difference...there just isn't much change pre- and post-Amiga.

    8. Re: Yes popularized by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...in 1997. Which is about 400m today. A lot of money. Apple wasn't a the big powerhouse they are now.

    9. Re:Yes popularized by MachineShedFred · · Score: 1

      Microsoft got plenty back on that investment, as well as all the revenue from selling Mac office apps (which was profitable for them) and then porting some of the features that the Mac App team came up with into Windows Office.

      Oh, and they didn't pay $1B from stealing QuickTime right in the middle of their DoJ antitrust suit, which was the reason they settled anyway. They knew they were going to lose that one and the only strategy they had left was to wait for Apple to bleed out or settle.

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
    10. Re:Yes popularized by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There were 262 million PCs sold in 2017. Only about 7 percent of those were Macs. That makes the Mac a "small niche."

    11. Re:Yes popularized by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let's compare apples to apples, shall we? (Pardon the expression).

      You can't compare Apple's sales to the ENTIRE REST OF THE PC INDUSTRY and say they're niche.

      In the top 5, Apple sells fewer machines than Dell, Lenovo, and HP but more than Acer.

      They're competing quite well thank you!

    12. Re:Yes popularized by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Speaking of influence, I'd say the single most influential GUI element was the start button. As much as we mocked it when Windows 95 came out, it's been widely copied.

      The Start button is just the NeXT Dock menu in the opposite corner, and the taskbar is just the NeXT Dock running left to right instead of top to bottom, plus a notification area. (While we're at it, Microsoft was on the Motif WG, which is why Windows' window manipulation menus and handles are essentially the same as the Motif interface.) So Windows pioneered... the notification area?

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  29. Have you used the original Mac? I did. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I received a 128K MAC in 1984 while a student at Drexel (we were part of the Consortsium and paid $2k for out Macs). We had to buy one and, having just purchased an IBM PC in 1982, I was not pleased at first. Yes, 128K was dismal. But, we successfully used it for word processing, graphics, lab work, and games. Initially, we had to develop using a Lisa because the Mac did not have a native development suite. That changed soon enough with Aztec, Lightspeed, and even Borland Turbo Pascal and Turbo Basic. Microsoft released Basic for the Mac as well.

    I upgraded my Mac to 512, 512KE, and to MacPlus with a whopping 2MB. It travelled around the world in my Navy stateroom after I graduated where I continued to develop crypto software.
    I sold the Mac at a flea market for $50 some 10 years later. I regret having sold it. Our Macs were signed by the entire team. Collector editions???? Others turned their macs into fish tanks.

    The ROM in the original Mac (and upgrades) were truly amazing pieces of code. QuickDraw enabled the lowly 128K machine to do some amazing things. Say what you want, but the Mac was revolutionary.

    I used Windows and Linux machines in my work. Didn’t buy another Mac until 2011. I now have a MacBook Pro as well as that 2011 iMac (despite being unable to upgrade the OS now). I love my Mac. Is it a gaming computer? Fuck no. But, I don’t play games. I use it for work where I am a solutions architect. It gets the job done. But, I want a iMac Pro. Lol.

  30. Real success was Intel CPUs and Mac OS X by perpenso · · Score: 1

    Mac OS 8 and 9 sucked, but this is what the iMac launched with and I believe that was successful still. e.g. people bought it to get a computer that goes on the Internet.

    The real success did not occur until Intel CPUs and Mac OS X. That is where their marketshare doubled, that is where people no longer had to choose PC or Mac software, they could have both thanks the Boot Camp. Yes there were emulators but dual boot solves a lot of compatibility and performance problems. Although moving to Intel helped greatly here to, only the API had to be emulated not the instruction set as on PowerPC based system.

  31. Jobs by MemoryDragon · · Score: 1

    actually Jobs was the reason why the Apple III failed in the first place. The design was ok, but jobs insisted on a fanless design and the cooling fans were pulled, the rest is history.

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

      actually Jobs was the reason why the Apple III failed in the first place. The design was ok, but jobs insisted on a fanless design and the cooling fans were pulled, the rest is history.

      Bzzt! Wrong! Thanks for playing...

      According to Woz, what killed the Apple /// was that the Board of Directors insisted upon 100% Apple ][ compatibility, to the point where, in Apple ][ emulation mode, certain Apple /// features, such as color text and linear screen addressing, were defeated. This added a BUNCH of (unnecessary) complexity to the hardware design, causing the PCBs to employ radical (at the time) trace width and trace spacing specs, so that up to THREE traces could be routed BETWEEN .100" spaced IC pins (!!!)

      This caused MASSIVE problems with the PCBs, which in turn initiated the infamous "Three Inch Drop Test", to determine if a particular unit had bad PC boards or not.

      BTW, this was actually fixed in the final Rev. of the PCBs; but by that time, the Mac was already out, and no one was interested in the Apple ///.

      A shame, really, because its OS, AppleSOS (Sophisticated Operating System) was really quite advanced for the time (much more so than its watered-down version, ProDOS).

  32. Re:It was an expensive piece of shit by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 0

    Doesn't matter about what was "better". what matters is what impacted the world more. Apple products were always 2nd or 3rd place options, and always way behind the leaders. The Commodore 64 dominated until the rise of the IBM PC and the clones. That is what changed the world - a standard, open hardware and OS platform for anyone to work with. Domination in the market as a standard platform enabled an explosion of software. Without the IBM PC and Windows, the entire 1990s Internet/computer revolution would have never happened.

    --
    Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
  33. ME was okay with caveats. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    First off you couldn't mix driver models, which at that time was hard unless you had a legacy free system like a late pentium 3 or pentium 4 system. Doing so caused all sorts of instability and eventual crashes.

    Second you couldn't reliably have more than about 512 megs of RAM. I managed to run 1 gig in a box for a relative, and it works pretty well when shut down daily. However certain sequences of activities, like loading certain programs in a row, would cause various forms of instability or corruption, particularly to the desktop, and eventually crash or freeze the machine. I got the config.sys and autoexec.bat settings fixed up to allow it, but it required reducing the file cache size and some other changes to work, which had their own issues depending on the applications you wanted open.

    The final downside was the lack of a full featured dos implementation and the ability to return to dos, like earlier Win9x versions had. If you were still using both windows and dos native applications Win98 was still a much better platform.

    If you worked around all of these, it was still quite a good OS. I had a relative continue using it until 2006 or 2008 when they replaced it with a MacBook, before eventually defecting back to a Windows 7 notebook before splitting their time between Windows and Linux. If you wanted to play videogames on a single core processor and wanted the lowest overhead possible, it was a fast and capable operating system. Really the largest flaw with it was FAT32 and the 4 gig file size limit. That is what forced people to migrate to windows 2000/xp even before Direct X support was dropped and api changes resulted in updated applications breaking.

    That said, by todays standards it is fundamentally insecure, although not really any less stable or bloated than modern versions of windows.

  34. Re:It was an expensive piece of shit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    None of the machines taken as whole were cheap, capable, or usable, before Win 95 and the then current IBM PC compatibles. The Amiga in 1985 was an exception, but unfortunately it didn't have the same impact as the Win 95 machines.

    The Macs were expensive and difficult to work with, and it didn't change until the 2000's.

  35. X originated at MIT in 1984. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not sure if you'd say that was "on the market" though.

    Not sure what the status of the stuff from Xerox PARC was.

  36. Hahahaha by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I still remember the first time I saw a MacIntosh. I burst into uncontrollable laughter. And I still giggle when I think of the MacIntosh.

  37. Little work and pitiful? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I did lots of document and spreadsheet work with those cute little guys. Let us not forget the Apple Laser 300. Overpriced ... maybe ... $5000, but it was Laser and Poscript. There was also the great Imagewriter dot matrix fonts, and not to mention their cute and easy server software. I absolutely loved pounding out papers on their long-stroked keyboards. I did miss not having a 10-key at first, but that was quickly rectified.

  38. What hasn't changed in 35 years by homes32 · · Score: 1

    * They are still at least 2x the price of non-macintosh computers with similar hardware
    * They still come with under-powered CPU's compared to their competition
    * They still come with a minimal amount of RAM
    * They are still not designed to be "up-gradable" (often RAM and CPUs are soldered in place, etc.)

  39. Mac Plus by jsepeta · · Score: 1

    The Mac Plus (1986) could be outfitted with 4096K RAM, and that's the upgrade I pursued with my 128k Mac. I think this was in 1989 when I was a junior in college. By the time I was a senior, I purchased a 100mb SCSI hard drive, and it rocked.

    --
    Remember kids, if you're not paying for the service, YOU ARE THE PRODUCT THAT IS BEING SOLD.
  40. Re: It was an expensive piece of shit by tigersha · · Score: 1

    So were the the first cars, the first touch phones, the first planes and penicillin. Al inventions start like that. Hell even the wheel was probably a toy for rich boy cavemen at first

    --
    The dangers of excessive individualism are nothing compared to the oppressiveness of excessive collectivism
  41. They havent upgraded in 35 years by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Cant innovate my ass

  42. I was a SR. at Drexel university in 1984... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When they made the freshman buy macs. the one thing that isn't mentioned her is that there was NO software for it in the beginning.

  43. Re:It was an expensive piece of shit by ogdenk · · Score: 1

    Bullshit. The Atari ST was cheap and incredibly usable and capable, had a great software base and was nowhere near as expensive as a 286 or a Mac. Built in MIDI as well. Many GUI based software suites got their start on the ST. You could also get a PC Ditto and Spectre GCR cartridge and emulate all 3 platforms for less than the cost of a decent 4MB Mac SE.

    Macs were not difficult to work with in the slightest and far less of a pain in the ass to deal with than a DOS/Win3.1 machine. They were just expensive.

    The Amiga was cool but not as easy to deal with out of the box as an ST or Mac.

  44. Re: It was an expensive piece of shit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Umm the first cell phones were easy to operate.

  45. Re:It was an expensive piece of shit by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

    Reality must really chap your hide, knowing that Apple has never been a market leader, and that Bill Gates was 100% correct when he told Apple what was going to happen - and they ignored him. Apple has always been an interesting "also ran" option, that makes things shiny - but really doesn't innovate. They just copy others, polish, and try to sell for more money.

    --
    Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
  46. Re:It was an expensive piece of shit by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

    The Amiga was cool but not as easy to deal with out of the box as an ST or Mac.

    I don't know STs, but the unboxing experience was similar for Macs and Amigas. Mac gave you System and Hypercard while Amiga gave you Workbench and Amiga [Microsoft] BASIC. Either way you plugged stuff in and switched it on, and followed the directions. There was one notable difference; System 6 was like what, eight floppies counting hypercard? Workbench 1.3 fit on one floppy (Workbench 2 took... 2? 4? I forget) and BASIC was on one more floppy.

    If you were trying to do serious things, the Amiga was much easier, because it had a shell. Stuff that was tedious on Macintosh was simple on Amiga, once you figured out their wildcarding system.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"