Macintosh's 1984 Debut

Stephen E. Jobs writes "SiliconValley.com is celebrating the 20th anniversary of the Mac by republishing some of its coverage of the machine's 1984 launch. 'After two years of secrecy, brainstorming and sometimes zany company maneuvering, Apple Computer Inc. will unveil a new personal computer Jan. 24 that is the size of a stack of paper and, for about the same price, contains more power than the basic IBM PC.' That's how one writer described the Apple Macintosh in 1984. There's more at SiliconValley.com."

Stack of paper??

[k4_pacific]

'that is the size of a stack of paper and, for about the same price'

Stacks of paper can come in all different sizes and shapes. The recycling plant near my house has a stack of newsprint big enough to bury a bus. That's like saying, "I have a jar big enough to hold the volume of air inside it."

The Wintel world needs the Mac...

[Genghis9]

...to stay on their toes. It's the original un-Microsoft, long before Linux rolled round. And the non-Intel trend keeps them innovating too.

Mac Opinion

[Upaut]

This is just my opinion, but I think that Mac has always been geared towards the artist, while IBM has always been aimed at engineers. Using either of these machines one could see the begining of this trend, and now in the year 2004 it is still true. I do not believe that either machine is better than the other, and they never were. The difference between the two is more right-brain left brain.

Re:Innovation

[Quarters]

I'm no rah-rah MS fan, but can you really claim Media Center PCs, Tablet PCs, Pocket PCs, the XBox, Media Player 9 (player and codecs), etc... stagnation? If anything MS is painfully aware that they need to divest themselves of a PC-only mentality and are inovating in a wide number of areas at an alarming rate to ensure that they don't end up with all of their eggs in one basket.

POINT AND CLICK????

[armando_wall]

I remember being completely skeptical of that new "point and click with a mouse" thing, in the macintosh. It looked like a cool idea, but in my keyboard-oriented mind, I just couldn't imagine how, lord, HOW you could tell the computer what to do by entirely relying on clicks on graphics. Steve Jobs was a great envisioner (or xerox copycat, depending of your point of view).

Re:Durability of the Mac

[taniwha]

I still have an original Mac 128, it still works (mind you it's been upgraded to 1Mb and had a hard disk bolted on the back - which doesn't work any more).

IMHO the big advance on the Mac at the time was having a high-quality (for the time) bit-mapped display on a consumer priced PC - even then it seemed an amazing waste of memory

Forshadowing of Apple's 20 year problem

[bckrispi]

Apple's brochures and TV ads proclaim, ``Of the 235 million people in America, only a fraction can use a computer.'' Macintosh, they say, is ``the computer for the rest of us.''

This statement really tells a lot about the problems that Apple had throughout the mid 80's to late 90's. They were so innovative, that they often fell "off of the curve". In 1984, Joe Consumer wasn't about to spend $2500 on a computer; an appliance that was, at the time, a luxery, and not a necessity. And certainly, it had no where near the ubiquitiy that it enjoys today. Microsoft knew that the timing for a "computer for the masses" was around the mid 90's, ten years after the Mac debuted. So they *ahem* borrow the Mac's look and feel, and release Win 95. IIRC, '95 was around the time that Apple decided that the next revolution in computing was in handhelds and palmtops that could respond to a user "writing" rather than keying in data. The Newton exploded onto the market, and promptly gathered dust on the shelves as users passed it by. A scant four years later, 3Com capitalizes on Apple's brilliant but horribly timed innovation with the Palm series.

It looks like after 20 years, Apple is finally getting it right. The IMac was the first "sexy" computer. Only a year later, I see that I can buy neon ground effects for my transparent PC. ITunes was released at exactly the perfect time. And should be, and rightly so, a cornerstone of Apple's brand identity for the first decade of the 21'st century. So, Happy Birthday to the Mac, and congrats to the great engineers at Apple that have finally learned that innovation and market timing are inseperable.

Re:Mac Opinion

[KrispyKringle]

First, it's not just your opinion. You probably got it from the fact that Macs are marketed at graphic designers, artists, and the like, while PCs are business machines in accounting offices, cubicles, and so forth. IBM was and still is renowned for engineering and research, not cultural relevance or consumer appeal.

Comparitavely, Macs are (or at least were) rarely used in scientific research (like I said, this is changing--I know of a few labs now that use G5s and the like as a replacement for more expensive Unix workstations, but by and large Lintel is far cheaper). Apple has instead tried to appeal to consumers, not businesses or engineers. iPods are for hip twenty-somethings, not procurement departments in major corporations.

But this is solely because of marketing and focus. Macs are no better for digital art than PCs, in my experience (except for perhaps a few bits of software not available on PC, such as Final Cut Pro). Macs are rarely significantly faster for the price at graphics. And conversely, few scientific applications wouldn't run as well on OSX--which presumably can compile most ANSI C and, if I'm not mistaken, has POSIX compliant libraries and so forth--as they would on Windows or Linux.

There's no reason to say Macs are better for artists and PCs are better for engineers. Both appreciate speed and reliability, both appreciate security and stability, both appreciate elegance and ease of use. It's marketing that's shaped your perception. Nothing more.

If its taken care of...

[nurb432]

Except for the moving parts, most any PC ( of any type ) will last for a hundred years...

Now if you discuss fans, HD's, floppies, then yes, they do have a much redcued life span.

But even then, taken care of they should still be running.

Re:Mac's Popularity

[JoshWurzel]

Just because something is good enough to inspire brand loyalty doesn't mean that everyone will feel that way or that everyone can jump on the bandwagon. Some people just never get exposed to macs. Either because they aren't sold at the local computer place, or the "knowledgable" person they trust doesn't use them. Believe it or not, some people have never heard of Apple.

Also, some people see it and don't care, and some people see it but can't afford to go buy one (expense argument aside, entry level macs are more than low-end PC's).

With a small but loyal following, Apple could easily stay in business. TiVo is still around. So is BMW. Everyone who drives a BMW loves it and wants one, but for some reason I still see lots of Fords and Chevys. But my parents are going to be buried in their BMW's, I assure you.

Finally, the REAL story.

[metalligoth]

According to several sources, Microsoft has been working on Mac software for more than a year. Early on, Mac project leader Steve Jobs took the Mac plans to Microsoft founder Bill Gates, sources said. Gates reportedly agreed not to produce similar mouse-based software for a year, but with Mac behind schedule, Microsoft was able to jump into the market in 1983 with its own mouse programs for the IBM PC.

I wondered if I would ever find out exactly how Microsoft was ever able to take the Mac GUI, complete with Mac icons. There have been many conflicting stories over the years. Since this is from 1984, I tend to think we might have finally found something accurate.

Re:Amiga forever!

[Anonymous Coward]

Flamebait my ass. The Amiga was more powerfull, and CHEAPER too! That's fact! Oh, and it had 4096 colors at a time when the Mac had *2* and the Pc had *4*.

Not to mention the ability to process RAW NTSC signals making it the supreme video editing computer TO THIS DAY.

In fact, the amiga computer actually won the top prize at Macworld one year!!! Oh the embarassment! It's not even a MAC!

But I digress, do to the Amiga what you can only do with mod points, rather than facts.

Re:Mac's Popularity

[Mwongozi]

> Ever looked at the price of a mac?

Have you?
G4 eMac with 17" monitor: $799
G4 iBook: $1099
And you can even buy the fastest personal computer in the world for $2999.

For what you get, Macs are not expensive.

Not any more

[CoolMoDee]

I disagree with your opinion, well atleast with macs in 2004. I think now days they are geared twords both engineers *and* artists. What more could an engineer want than a portable unix machine that is purdy to look at to boot?

Re:Amiga forever!

[Saven Marek]

Now that's an Amiga attitude! If you were living in 1993 what you say might be relevant, but none of us exist in the past. It's 2004. The fastest Amiga that can run a real, released AmigaOS is what, a PPC604? yes. It's a PPC604. Don't go counting the AmigaOne and it's generic G3 or G4 motherboard because then you're falling into the typical Amiga trap of living for vaporware. Perhaps when AmigaOS4 is actually released and not a "Beta that will be here next month!!" you can only be 5 years behind the times.

In fact, the amiga, to this day, is the ONLY computer that can run Mac software on a 68060, the FASTEST 680x0 CPU ever made

That is a lie. 68060 adaptors work just fine in a Quadra 630 and will boot and use the macOS without problem. Making a big deal about the FASTEST 680x0 CPU is irrelevant when, by the time a 68060 was released, the rest of the world was using 200MHz+ Pentiums and PowerPCs. Behind the times yet again.

If you wish to use that argument, then you may as well use it against yourself. The PC is, to this day, the only computer that can run Amiga software on a *insert favorite x86 CPU name here*, the FASTEST x86 CPU ever made. What's the point?

Re:Innovation

[Jester99]

can you really claim Media Center PCs, Tablet PCs, Pocket PCs, the XBox, Media Player 9 (player and codecs), etc... stagnation?

Let's see...

Media Center PC -- What's that? I've yet to see anyone who has one.

Tablet PC -- A fantastic step backwards in design. If you're already lugging two pounds and something the size of a notebook around, why not just use a notebook PC? It does everything a tablet PC does and more, and has a much easier input interface.

Pocket PC -- Oh, huge innovation there. Apple beat them. Palm beat them. Handspring beat them. That's just another ripoff.

XBox -- Everyone's got a PS2. Sorry. Putting a P3-700 in a box with a harddrive and a TV-out running a stripped down windows kernel and DirectX doesn't count as "innovation". That's called "building a computer that plugs into the TV". And Sony's done it better.

Media Player 9 -- The player sucks. Sure, there are some good new codecs, but the best interface they ever had was in 6.4. Ever since spacebar-to-pause-and-play was removed, they've gone downhill. Whoever thought that was a good idea seriously needs a smack with the cluestick.

Re:Innovation

[Quarters]

iPod - Oh, there were MP3 players long before that.
OSX - BSD had been around for quite some time.
iTunes - I could start the list with MusicMatch Jukebox and go from there.

The stuff Apple is doing isn't any more ground breaking than the stuff MS is doing. It's just viewed through a bunch of people wearing rose-colored glasses, unfortunately.

Re:Well, it took 20 years...

[Rascasse]

I'd like to reply even though I'm not teamhasnoi. My experience is similar to his though. My first home computer was an Apple IIc we bought in the early 1980s. Since then, I'd been using all PCs (386,486,Pentium II,III, and IV). This past April, I was in need of a laptop and found that Apple's were quite cost competitive with the PC competition. So I bought a lowly iBook 700. The lowest rung of the Apple line. I upgraded it with Airport and an extra 512 MB of RAM (so it has 640 MB). And I haven't looked back.
My Pentium IV that was running, coincidentally, RH9 and KDE, is now a linux server as opposed to desktop. I don't plan on purchasing another PC in the immediate future. I am planning on purchasing a PowerMac. But in the meantime, my iBook is my primary machine.
The experience is hard to describe. I know this is corny, but it's like finding your dream girl - a gorgeous female that also is intelligent and can put up with all your geeky quirks. I find myself fighting less to get things working, and instead simply working. Mac OS X has definitely changed my perspective on computing. Though it has its own minor problems, the bar has been set so high by OS X in my eye that I now frown on software environments that I once used on a daily basis just one year ago. What I once saw as quirks to put up with, I now see as fundamental problems I do not want to have to think about.
I can't pinpoint what it is about Mac OS X that I just love - perhaps they are too numerous, or too subtle to objectify. What I can say is that those I know who have jumped ship to Mac OS X (many from Linux, a few from Windows) have not turned back. If you get a chance, try out a new Apple with Panther installed and give it a go.

Not a Mac user, but ...

[Scholasticus]

I've never owned an Apple/Mac, and don't particularly want to, but this is an important anniversary. Apple has innovated more over the years than just about any other computer company. Apple has had it's ups and downs, but it could be argued that they've been more loyal to their customers than anyone could have expected. The fact that so many of their customers are loyal to them - well, that should tell you something about what kind of company this is. Hats off to Apple for 20 years of the Mac!

Re:Innovation

[fermion]

Really what you are talking about are different kinds of innovation. MS started with a couple products, DOS and Basic, and evolved them. Over time some of the innards are the same, some of the innards are different. Some of the interfaces are the same, some are different. DOS had a GUI tacked on. Windows had networking tacked on. Basic had a GUI tacked on, then had it's mid level codes generalized, then had other languages tacked on. This evolution provided a level of comfort. You could buy a MS product and know that with relatively minor changes things would still work. The innovations would mostly be cosmetic. MS would never innovate too much.

Apple, OTOH, never limited itself to the current platform. It built a product that worked well, and then tweaked the product with small improvements. If we were still working with a glorified Apple ][ in 1995, would you have said it was innovative to put a GUI on ProDos?(I wonder if shape tables would have made it better than Windows?) The early mac very quickly had a hard disk, networking, fonts, all the things we think as modern, by the late 80's. It did not have to deal with TSR kludge, and multifinder allowed everything one would need for the common office and creative tasks. During this time, Apple was creating the basics of home desktop publishing. MS spent the time catching up, until the early 90's. By the time they did, Apple knew that the 6800 platform was not sufficient. So it working in a new chip. Thank god for that. And then Apple realized that the original MacOS was insufficient, so it developed OS X. Thank god for that.

As i said, it is different forms on innovation. Even now what MS is doing cannot really be compared to what apple is doing. They are moving towards different goals. Apple has developed the pay for download music industry. MS is going to make people use it. Both innovative, but different. A few years likely will not make a difference. Both companies will do what they do best.

Re:A stack of paper?

[BandwidthHog]

Well, I'm not most people. Got one stashed in the closet. I've gotten rid of most of my excess Maccage, but there's still a few...

Re:I remember all of this

[SirDaShadow]

Some things don't change :)

Except spelling and grammar. Remember the time when you politely added (sp) after a word when you were not sure about its spelling?

Re:Durability of the Mac

[Haeleth]

In 100 years reproducing things will be next to free and owning an 'original' will be meaningless.

This is demonstrably not true. It's already possible to produce artificial gemstones which are essentially indistinguishable from "real" gemstones - but for some reason people still value "real" gemstones very highly, and sneer at artificial ones!

By your logic, the availability of good forgeries of any product would render genuine examples worthless. But that has never happened in the past, isn't happening now, and I doubt it ever will - not for as long as advertising continues to work.

Re:Durability of the Mac

[Chemical Serenity]

Counter-prediction: Simply by the fact that things will be able to be reproduced for pennies means exactly that the original, hard-to-assemble objects will become exceedingly rare and valuable collectors peices, and command exhorbitant prices.

I can easily get lithographics of a Renoir for a few bucks, but an original will cost big bucks.

Re:POINT AND CLICK????

[kfg]

Well, in point of fact you couldn't then, and you can't now.

The Mac development kit consisted in large part of a command line interface.

You can point and click to tell a computer to do certain mechanical functions of a predetermined nature, but the person who did the predetermination couldn't tell the computer what was expected of it entirely by pointing and clicking; and if you ever want to step off that predetermined path neither can you.

Simple signs with pictures on them work well enough when pointing at one and grunting is sufficient communication for the task at hand. In fact in times gone by it wasn't uncommon for travelers to carry a deck of cards with pictograms on them conveying certain ideas like "Where the hell is the bathroom," or " That's too much money. Your camel smells like a toilet."

For more complex ideas linguistic language is still needed. As evidence I point to the fact that you haven't abandoned speech yet and seriously doubt you have any intention of doing so in the future in favor of a deck of cards.

KFG

Re:Forshadowing of Apple's 20 year problem

[tomem]

Your analysis tells us little while perpetuating the myth that Mac's were expensive. For Pete's sake, it cost $2500 for a KAYPRO with two floppies and no hard drive back then! And as expensive as the original Laserwriter was, it undersold by a large amount other comparable laser printers. Perhaps you aren't aware that the initial asking price for a Lisa was $10,000. That was a mistake, but the Mac was created to show that the price of an IBM PC could buy a lot more.

It's pretty clear to me that corporate greed, resulting in Steve Jobs departure, was what hobbled the Mac in its competition with PCs from 1985 to 1998. Meanwhile, the world wide web was developed on NeXT hardware, catching Microsoft (and Apple) flatfooted. A related lesson I draw from this is the abysmal failure of the myth that technical expertise has no place in the executive suite and that a good manager can manage anything.

Hah - Macs will have DRM too!

[rueger]

Don't get me wrong, I think light-use-DRM is fair (e.g. iTunes Music Store) ... I honestly wouldn't be surprised if Apple had double digit marketshare by 2010.

I honestly wouldn't surprised if Apple hardware had the same DRM as PC hardware by 2010. They've already nailed their users with the iTunes DRM, and I can see no reason why they won't continue down that road.

If nothing else, companies like Adobe, who are getting positively [slashdot.org] nuts [slashdot.org] about fighting "pirates" will force them into it.

Re:Wired

[diamondsw]

Ah yes, where Jef Raskin makes up a *lot* of history (the original "Macintosh" he started did not have a GUI, sound, etc - it was really an evolution of the Apple II), and while Microsoft certainly has supported the Mac with Office and such, let's not forget that they not only stole the interface, but conveniently stopped producing Office for 3-4 long years in the mid-90's, ironically enough, right after Windows 95 arrived. Hmmmm....

Re:Innovation

[Erratio]

None of the things that you mentioned are "innovative". They're all adequately engineered implementations of already established technologies, as has been pretty much everything in Microsoft's history. I'd say that it's now more readily apparent that they're not innovative since the industry's grown so much, rather than back when what they were doing was somewhat risky just because of the much smaller computer market. Microsoft's expansion into other PC-related markets is only "innovative" in a business sense, not a technological one. Microsoft has no reason to be on the curring edge of technology..why dump a lot of resources into ideas that may or may not work when you can just dump a bunch of money into making clones of ideas that you know do. They'll probably always be a corporation first and a technology company second.

Re:Innovation

[nathanh]

But remember that when Microsoft came up with Windows, it was actually a very innovative thing too - a Mac-like interface for you DOS machines!

How was it innovative when Digital's GEM did the same thing before Windows even existed?

Seems Microsoft can just say "innovate" enough times and people start to believe it.

Re:Mac's Popularity

[Lars T.]

I bought a Mac 128K in 1985 new for something like $1,499. It really hurt. That's the most I've paid for a computer, ever.

Ahh, so you did not buy a IBM PC for more at that time? Yeah, that pricing sure kept those out of the business/office world.

Re:Mac's Popularity

[MalachiConstant]

If I'm going to a network party, and I show up with a Mac, I'm going to be left out unless we're playing Unreal or something.

Are you trolling, or do you not know much about macs? How about:

C&C Generals

Quake III

Starcraft

Diablo II

Halo

SimCity

Age of Empires II

Civilization III

Age Of Mythology

Alien Vs. Predator II

Baldur's Gate II

Harry Potter Games

Max Payne

Medal Of Honor games

Neverwinter Nights

No One Lives Forever 1 & 2

Return To Castle Wolfenstein

Jedi Knight II

Tony Hawk Games

Warcraft III

Lineage

Everquest

True, PCs get more games, and sometimes the Mac releases come later, but quite a lot of the games I buy ship with Mac and PC versions on the same disk.

Re:Durability of the Mac

[zoney_ie]

To be perfectly honest... I wouldn't have a barmy notion how to "properly" dispose of a PC here in Ireland. Possibly legally - chuck it in the bin, but as Ireland has a whole list of breaches of E.U. Environmental Directives - I don't think that counts.

Re:Innovation

[alex_ant]

Other examples of false "innovations":

TV - oh there were moving pictures long before that.
light bulb - sheesh, we've had the sun for aeons, and that's even brighter!
radio - ever hear of can and string?
camera - stuff has been happening in real life for a long time, these people who invented film are just ripping off reality.

Re:Durability of the Mac

[The Almighty Dave]

Ok, let's save every piece of crap we accumulate in our lives, just because it might be worth something someday. That's a great idea. Your grandkids will end up paying to have your treasures hauled away, because most of it is crap and they can't be bothered to sort it out.

Lets not let your zelotness get in the way.

[jellomizer]

But some of your arguments are bad.

Media Center PC -- What's that? I've yet to see anyone who has one.
I remember talking about Linux in 1994, the the PC (Mostly DOS) Guys were going yea I don't know anyone but you who is using it so I guess it isn't that great.

Tablet PC -- A fantastic step backwards in design. If you're already lugging two pounds and something the size of a notebook around, why not just use a notebook PC? It does everything a tablet PC does and more, and has a much easier input interface.
This reminds me back in 1994 again when explaining the wonders of E-Mail and the internet. Then people are going, gee that sounds really backward why not just give them a telephone call it is a lot easier and you get a response back plus you can transmit your feeling a lot better.

Pocket PC -- Oh, huge innovation there. Apple beat them. Palm beat them. Handspring beat them. That's just another ripoff.
Now in 1995 or so. I was showing the X-Windows interface then they said (although sightly incorrectly) Well that is just a copy of Windows and Mac it is just an other ripoff.

Media Player 9 -- The player sucks. Sure, there are some good new codecs, but the best interface they ever had was in 6.4. Ever since spacebar-to-pause-and-play was removed, they've gone downhill. Whoever thought that was a good idea seriously needs a smack with the cluestick.
Well I am sorry they got rid of that feature for you but they put others in. It reminds me of the old debates on which was better GUI or Command lines. For DOS and Windows. They kept on going well DOS does this and this better then Windows while completely ignoring all the other advancement that windows had to offer.

You are just trying to prove to yourself that Linux or Mac or whatever products you use are better then the competition. I am not a fan of MS and I don't like the direction their innovation is going. But they are innovating. With competion from Apple and Linux MS is starting to get hammered and begging to improve their products more and innovate them more and more now and both Linux and Apple is doing the same. It is called competion and it is good. So stop Panicking when ever Microsoft does something better then its comptitiors because they will do something else to make their product better.

Re:Innovation

[Monkeybaister]

I've looked at getting a Tablet PC. Everyone I've seen has been underpowered and overpriced. For the same price, a notebook would be a better computer but not in the tablet form factor.

I also believe Tablet PC makers have been saying that the sales are not agreeing with the hype.

The problem seems to be that they are trying to sell them as notebook replacements instead of a computer that's a tablet. They're too thick, too heavy, don't have enough battery power, or are overpriced.

I'd like a Tablet PC to do those things you list, but they all suck.

Re:Help Me Decide!

[JudgeFurious]

I personally consider the Macintosh to be the "official platform" of zealotry. Mac zealots are a unique bunch and I think are the most obnoxious of zealots. Plus they have the original "figurehead" in Steve Jobs. Sure Linux has "The Linus" and Windows (can you be a Windows zealot?) has "Gates of Borg" but Jobs came before them and his reality distortion field is IMO stronger.

What I found really strange was that I didn't expect it to happen to me. All of the Mac nuts I know (with a small handfull of exceptions) all just got a wild hair up their ass and oneday just went and bought a Mac. That's the first step and it seems like all of them suddenly began to hold all other platforms in deep contempt.

Then comes the inevitable collecting of old Apples, Macs, and Next computers. Before you know it you have a room in your house dedicated to a bunch of old computers you didn't even care about 6 months before. You're watching keynote speeches you didn't care about 6 months before.

BSD and Linux would be I think more relevant so maybe you want to be one of those guys. With those you've got cool operating systems and there's nothing wrong with that. With Macs though you've got old hardware AND old software that's unique to your new hobby. You've also got all kinds of collectible junk to spend cash on.

I'd go Mac but then I'm biased

Re:Durability of the Mac

[daviddennis]

We're fanatical because we care.

I'm willing to concede that Apple and Steve have plenty of faults. Unfortunately, the alternatives have far worse ones.

I'd rather be around a bunch of fanatics than The Resigned.

D

Re:Market Share

[unother]

Christ, not that tired old analogy again.

Apple has certainly not kept their solution proprietary--they have acceded to "market demands". Any tower Mac has AGP, PCI, USB, ATA... all technologies which were created on the PC side of the fence. Rather than battle with proprietary designs (even Firewire, Apple-innovated, has been accepted as the de facto new A/V transmission standard, cross-platform), Apple has certainly chosen more compatibility, not less. Furthermore, every Mac since System 7.1 Pro has had the ability to read and write PC media. And now, OS X is, with its core: BSD!

This is a long ways from the time when PC and Mac hardware/software was absolutely separate, with completely different interfaces on each platform. When it comes to compatibility, Macs are a far cry from a "proprietary" design, relative to what it once was, these days.

Re:Innovation

[Euler]

I work with tablets, and find them to be more trouble than they are worth. To do any serious work on them, I have to add a keyboard. So then I have this stupid keyboard hanging off it like a desktop unit would. Kinda defeats the purpose of portability. Tablets are usable if you only use the machine for a specific application that only requires point and click operation.

Touchscreens are handy though, and there are plenty of laptops out there with touchscreens. Some newer models like the Panasonic CF-18 and Toshiba 3500 have swivel screens that convert the unit from laptop to tablet configuration.

I actually saw the commercial live!

[troop23]

It raised the hair on the back of my neck. It was a cold rainy day in So. Illinois. My wife and kids had gone to bed. I couldn't believe what I was seeing.

A little remembered fact about the commercial is that "Big Brother" is IBM. They were the Microsoft of the 70s and 80s. Lets hope they don't revert to their old ways.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Help Me Decide!

[steeviant]

I'm almost ready to become a zealot but I don't know whether to become a Mac, Linux, or BSD zealot.

Here's a thought, why not become a *nix zealot. That way you don't have to pick a team, because they're all from the same camp.

That way you get to watch with glee as the wagons assemble in a circle around windows, and you get the freedom to use the best unixy OS for the job at hand.

Re:POINT AND CLICK????

[mehgul]

This is one argument against the Mac that I never understood.
I actually remember one of the first time I saw 3.5" floppies was at a friends' PC or Amiga, I can't remember well.
The stupid thing I did is when I removed the floppy while the computer was reading it. Of course if you do that too often you end up destroying the data on the floppy. You might even destroy the drive.
I think asking the computer to eject the disk properly is a bright idea indeed. The idea introduced with the Mac was to try to avoid the user misusing the computer, and that is very clever in designing any technical device. Plus I don't think you loose anything in terms of "control".
And really, if you had already crashed the the system, you would have to restart it anyway, right ? So, just restart it and push the mouse button at the same time, the floppy ejects and voila ! No need for a paperclip.

Re:POINT AND CLICK????

[calyphus]

What bothered me more than anything else was the lack of a floppy eject button. You had to ask the GUI to eject ... What the Mac introduced first was the notion that the user should not be in control of the computer.

Replacing a potentially damaging mechanical function with a safety feature is usurping the authority of the user. Electric fans were originally just metal blades with no protective shroud. Someone decided that maybe users could benefit from a little protection. A user might night intend to stick their hand into the spinning blade, but it could happen. Nor, would they want to eject a disk during a write operation, but it could happen.

If you really want to customize the function of a Mac the tools have been much more readily available (ResEdit and other resource hacks for classic Mac OS and with the Developer tools that ship with OS X). The 'do it this way' mentality of the Mac's design doesn't thwart users. It enables them to do more with one basic skill set. I'd rather a developer spend the time to make something work without my having to tweak every little thing. If I really feel the need to get under the hood, the tools are available. The average user wants a tool that works with minimal fuss. Helping the user take the most advantageous path for the most common operations aids them in doing what they want to do.

Your argument that the user must control every little aspect of a machine is a rant that argues for only computer scientists to use computers. I don't need to know how to forge a wrench to use one. I shouldn't need to forge every little function of my computer to make it do my work either.