Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Apple Businesses

Apple History At folklore.org 223

Posted by timothy
from the fun-reading dept.
oaklybonn writes "Andy Hertzfeld seems to be the primary author on this fascinating site, which details many of his experiences in the Macintosh (Bicycle??) development efforts. It includes such choice commentary as: "we were amazed that such a thoroughly bad game could be co-authored by Microsoft's co-founder, and that he would actually want to take credit for it in the comments.", on a page describing a game bundled with the original IBM PC." Reader themexican adds "As a plus, Hertzfeld notes in the faq that the python code running the well-designed and easy to navigate site will be made public in the near future."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Apple History At folklore.org

Comments Filter:
  • Mac Anniversary (Score:4, Interesting)

    by ahacop@wmuc.umd.edu (63340) on Tuesday January 27, 2004 @03:46AM (#8097662)
    So, what happened with the rumors of a special announcement on Monday in commemorate the Mac's anniversary?
  • Bicycle (Score:5, Informative)

    by mr100percent (57156) * on Tuesday January 27, 2004 @03:46AM (#8097663) Homepage Journal
    What, no elaboration on why it was called the Bicycle? Fine, I'll enlighten you.

    Apparently there was a story in Scientific American, or Popular Science, or some such magazine where the scientists were trying to determine what was the most efficient of animals in terms of locomotion. Which creature moved with the least amount of calories burned? Well, humans were waay down the list, pathetic in terms of other creatures. The top animal with the most efficient means of movement was an eagle or something. Then, one guy had this idea to measure how efficient a human being is on a bicycle. It was awesome, he was drastically more efficient, able to go further and without burning as many calories. It knocked the bird out of first place.

    So, early on, Apple was planning on calling it the "Bicycle for the Mind." I don't know if it makes as much an impact if you don't know the story behind it.

    I got this anecdote from one of the Apple behind-the-scenes books (I forget which), like Apple Confidential [amazon.com].

    • Re:Bicycle (Score:5, Interesting)

      by kfg (145172) on Tuesday January 27, 2004 @04:13AM (#8097761)
      You also have to understand the energy crisis culture at the time the fact that more scientific research went into bicycles in the previous ten years than probably all of thier history previous.

      It was right about at that time that the number of bicycles in America once again outnumbered cars.

      In 1980 in think there like 10,000 people in America who had ever heard of the Tour de France. In 1984 it was nearly as commonly known as the World Series.

      Bicycle was actually a buzzword.

      There is a species of albatros that lives entirely at sea for months at a time, generally soaring at little more than wave hight. It is so adapted to this enviroment and so efficeint in flight that it can sleep while so soaring.

      Even though water is a dense medium animals that are adapted to it do not have to expend energy supporting their own weight. I've got the chart from MIT around here somewhere, but can't lay hands on it immediately, as I recall the dolphin and tuna and salmon topped the list for animal motion by its own power (a soaring bird may use little energy, but that's because it's not doing much of anything. Air and gravity are.) A Portugese Man-o-War simply floats with the tide, as a man in an innertube might. Torpor is very energy efficient.

      So what animal is the most efficeint will change with your definition of "motion."

      It is interesting to note, however, that not only is a man on a bicycle more energy efficient than a swimming dolphin, but he is more energy efficient than the same man riding a horse.

      This is why the invention of the bicycle was such a stunning technological step that transformed society even before the advent of the motor car. The first smooth paved roads were made for the bicycle. The cars uspurped them.

      KFG
      • Re:Bicycle (Score:3, Funny)

        by yiantsbro (550957)
        "...adapted to this enviroment and so efficeint in flight that it can sleep while so soaring."

        Yes, but can they do it while nursing a series of gin and tonics like human airline pilots :) I think not...
    • Re:Bicycle (Score:4, Informative)

      by vought (160908) on Tuesday January 27, 2004 @04:34AM (#8097825)
      Apple had a higher-ed program for equipping labs with Macs in the late 1980s and early 1990s called "Wheels for the MInd".

      The Susan Kare-style logo at the top of the WotM letterhead was the same featured in the Folklore site. Pretty cool, if you ask me. Still cool, even if you don't.
    • Then, one guy had this idea to measure how efficient a human being is on a bicycle. It was awesome, he was drastically more efficient, able to go further and without burning as many calories. It knocked the bird out of first place.

      No surprise they were enamored by the efficiency of a bicycle. After pounding on my old Apple II/e's keyboard through grade school & high school almost anything was bound to be more efficient. Those were keys of lead. Even an old-fashioned manual typewriter was easier o
      • I cheated - I actually had an AppleMouse // (except all I had was the mouse, the manual, and a mousepaint disk - no controller card for me!) In fact, the mouse itself was the Apple MO100 (AFAIK), same as the one used on the pre-ADB Macs. About three apps worked with that mouse (I had the hardest time getting Publish It to even go into the config panel - damn broken //c keyboard).

        The //c I used was great, except for the fact that the whole computer once got rained on big time. It was dried out, but the keyb
      • After pounding on my old Apple II/e's keyboard through grade school & high school almost anything was bound to be more efficient.

        Ahhh, youth.

        If you think that was bad, try pounding through on a manual typewriter.

        Or writing it all by hand.

  • Apple history (Score:5, Informative)

    by Kris Thalamus (555841) * <selectivepressure.gmail@com> on Tuesday January 27, 2004 @03:49AM (#8097672)
    A model by model Apple history can be found here [apple-history.com].
    • Nostalgic (Score:4, Interesting)

      by CHaN_316 (696929) on Tuesday January 27, 2004 @04:43AM (#8097847)
      Just looked at that site, and saw the 1998 iMac [apple-history.com]. I shuddered when I saw those awful hockey puck mice that Apple chose to include with iMacs. Worst episode ever....

      At my university, they replaced them pretty quick with *REAL* mice. (Yes, I risk of sounding like a troll... but you know what I mean if you've ever used one of those mice)

      But the Macintosh Classic brought back some fond memories of elementary school. I remember sitting in computer class, and the teacher would say, now double click on clarisworks, and then she'd lecture for about 5 minutes then let us use the program.... because clarisworks took that long to load.
      • Re:Nostalgic (Score:2, Insightful)

        by unother (712929)

        At the risk of sounding like a troll myself, I wish to publish a quick defence of the "hockey-puck" mouse.

        The problem was ergonomics, and the manner in which most people hold mice, which is not ergonomically sound. The mouse is supposed to be held lightly, not tightly, the thumb on the left and third finger on the right (if right-handed), with the first two fingers resting atop it. When held this way, it works fine. You also find yourself much less at risk of getting "mouse-strain".

        Unfortunately, man

  • Folklore (Score:2, Interesting)

    by mad.frog (525085)
    "As a plus, Hertzfeld notes in the faq that the python code running the well-designed and easy to navigate site will be made public in the near future."

    Cool. This looks like a neat software setup for a website. I'll be interested in trying it out after it gets released.
  • by Jon Abbott (723) on Tuesday January 27, 2004 @04:03AM (#8097719) Homepage
    Andy Hertzfeld is one of the guys who helped design the original Mac, and also one of the people behind Eazel [slashdot.org], the GNOME UI polishing group. Eazel was the group that contributed Nautilus [gnome.org] file manager to GNOME. Strangely, Eazel's webpage [eazel.com] now displays jibberish...
  • by commbat (50622) on Tuesday January 27, 2004 @04:04AM (#8097725) Homepage
    "As a plus, Hertzfeld notes in the faq that the python code running the well-designed and easy to navigate site will be made public in the near future."

    Shows if you want to run a site written with an interpreted language and expect Slashdot level interest, you'd better be running it on one hell of a monster machine.

    Sheesh!

  • I think it boils down to the core concept that "users do not want to use a computer". From this leads designers to think of ways of alleviating redundancies and mundanity and in its place add comfort and features. The Mac UI really was a significant milestone for computers when it was first introduced. The GUI concept was a long time in coming and the Mac was so far ahead of the rest that it is only the lack of business acumen of the folks at Apple that hampered such a revolutionary product.

    Even today the interface is still significantly different and better than the alternatives. The concept of only a single window frame with a single menu bar at the top of the screen is easy for new users to grok. The reduction of mouse buttons to one makes such things as "Press the right-click... nono the button on the right... no, don't double click it, only click it once... no, press Control-Z to undo that... no, just stop touching the computer until I can come over, mom" a thing of the past. Who would have thought that a seemingly backwards step as the single mouse button would be such a revolutionary step forward for computing?

    It's almost like Apple has sucked all the brainpower out of Silicon Valley and packed it all into their Macintosh line. I have never owned a Mac, but I have many friends who do and who constantly rave about how much they love it. And I believe deep down that the reason they love it so much is because fundamentally they hate computers, but their Mac behaves unlike any other computer out there. It does its job and gets out of the way, unlike other operating systems which force you to spend half your time fiddling with screen refresh rates and Config menus just to get down to your real business.
    • I think one of the reasons Apple's UI's have always been favored by their users is their simplicity, and at the same time their high level of sofistication.

      Making a UI easy enough for a first time user to just turn the machine on and instantly have things act like they would like them to, or expect them to has always been a feature that Windows never accomplished. I remember sitting and using a Mac for the first time when I was 6 (in 1990) and I didn't need any help from our teacher to use it (no comp at h
    • by prockcore (543967) on Tuesday January 27, 2004 @04:44AM (#8097853)
      The reduction of mouse buttons to one makes such things as "Press the right-click... nono the button on the right... no, don't double click it, only click it once... no, press Control-Z to undo that... no, just stop touching the computer until I can come over, mom" a thing of the past.

      First of all, Apple invented the double click, which totally breaks the motif that Apple intended to create with the introduction of the mouse.

      Secondly, by getting rid of the right mouse button, Apple introduced things such as "control click.. no, control, not option.. no, not alt.. control.. yeah" You will never convince me that control clicking, or click-and-hold (which doesn't even work outside of the finder) is an adequate replacement for a second mouse button.

      Of course you can plug in a multibutton mouse into the mac and it works, this doesn't help people with laptops.

      The lack of a right mouse button and a scrollwheel on mac laptops makes things very frustrating.. and we have to resort to installing things like SideTrack to do things with the touchpad that PC touchpads do by default.

      In fact, Apple should just integrate SideTrack into the OS, or add a damn scrollwheel.

      Don't forget other UI disasters Apple is responsible for like Home and End keys that never seem to do what you expect.

      For example, in Safari, I expect that when I'm editing a text field, if I hit home, the cursor should move to the beginning of the field, not scroll to the top of the page. If I'm selecting emails in mail.app, hitting up and down selects the next and previous emails, but hitting home doesn't take me to the top of the email list, it scrolls the currently selected email.
      • by typhoonius (611834) on Tuesday January 27, 2004 @05:36AM (#8097987) Homepage

        Don't forget other UI disasters Apple is responsible for like Home and End keys that never seem to do what you expect. For example, in Safari, I expect that when I'm editing a text field, if I hit home, the cursor should move to the beginning of the field, not scroll to the top of the page. If I'm selecting emails in mail.app, hitting up and down selects the next and previous emails, but hitting home doesn't take me to the top of the email list, it scrolls the currently selected email.

        Use Command+Left to go to the beginning of a line or Command+Right to go to the end of a line. Alt+Left and Alt+Right skip words. It's not a bad system necessarily, just one you aren't used to.

        • Except for the fact that this collides with the standard key bindings used to go forward and back in web browsers.

          Actually, I don't have a huge problem with Home/End working one way or the other. (Where Mac style is Home/End == begin/end of document, and Windows style is Home/End == begin/end of line, and Ctrl-Home/End == begin/end of document. I *do* have problems shifting back and forth, however, which I find extremely disruptive.

          I tend to feel that the Mac chose a better system. The closest keys to
    • The reduction of mouse buttons to one makes such things as "Press the right-click... " a thing of the past. Who would have thought that a seemingly backwards step as the single mouse button would be such a revolutionary step forward for computing?

      Although for most users at the time, who had never before seen any mouse, let alone a three-button Xerox Alto or two-button Microsoft mouse, the Mac one-button was the first and original. Let's just say it was Microsoft's seemingly revolutionary two-button mo

      • But with multitasking, all the windows from different programs are on the desktop, yet there is no visual mapping from the menubar to its associated windows in the foreground program.

        This is true. The single menu bar does save space, and it is consistent (two bonuses in my book), but it does feel like it isn't part of the app. I think that most users forget the menu is even up there.

        To many people, the toolbar has become the menubar.. originally the toolbar was a place to put the most common things fro
      • by sapporo (552550) on Tuesday January 27, 2004 @06:07AM (#8098056)
        Sorry, I have always considered this a confusing, bad design.

        IMHO, there's more to that design decision that you think. The fact that the Mac's menu bar is placed at the top of the screen makes it a lot easier to point at with the mouse, because you simply cannot move the mouse pointer too far. This makes it far superior in terms of usability that Windows-style menus at the top of each window.

        For more details, I recommend reading "The Humane Interface" by Jef Raskin. UIs should be based on scientific usability studies, not developers' tastes - that's what Gnome and KDE suffer from.

      • by Bones3D_mac (324952) on Tuesday January 27, 2004 @07:01AM (#8098223)
        "Sorry, I have always considered this a confusing, bad design. It's a relic of single-tasking from the original Mac OS. The problem is that it's not just a single window frame. In the original Mac with single-tasking, the desktop was monopolized by a single app, even though that app might have multiple windows. But with multitasking, all the windows from different programs are on the desktop, yet there is no visual mapping from the menubar to its associated windows in the foreground program."

        There is good reason for the way the Mac OS handles itself the way it does. While it would seem like a good idea to contain all parts of a program within a single window, there are several problems with this... many of which become very confusing to the end user.
        • Too many menus!

        • As the user begins opening more and more applications, it takes longer for the user to find the correct menu among several windows. Going by the Human Interface Guidelines, a single menu on the screen reduces the time needed to locate the correct item. The menu also identifies the currently active application by displaying the application name/icon within itself.

        • Where did my menu go?

        • By making the menu part of the window, the menu is forced to travel around the screen with the window, unless the window is maximized to full screen. By locking the menu into a single, isolated place on the screen, it causes the interface to become much more predictable for the user. Predictability equals efficiency.

        • How do I create a new document after closing the last one, without having to relaunch the entire application?

        • With a menu stored entirely within a window, you can't... unless your application displays windows within other windows. Under the Human Interface Guidelines, this isn't an issue. The app continues running until the user decides to kill it himself. As applications get bigger over time, so does their load time. The time wasted per year by creating a new instance of an app each time the user mistaken closes the previous document when he meant to create a new document, could add up to hours or even days worth of time.
        There are other issues, but these are the major ones that tend to cause the most trouble. This is not to say there aren't problems with the Mac OS in it's current form though. For whatever reason, Apple apparently did away with most of the Human Interface Guidelines somewhere between Mac OS 8 and Mac OS X. As a result, things are now much more complicated than they need to be. So, if there is a problem with something in Mac OS 9/Mac OS X, blame Apple... not the Human Interface Guidelines they should have been following.
        • Interesting. I use KDE, which can either do a Mac style menu across the top or menus-in-apps. Here's an interesting point:

          On my desktop, I use xinerama, either two or three monitors (I have gone as high as five in the past). I use menus-in-apps (aka Windows style). I load many many apps and have them spread out all over the place. I also tend to open new URLs in new windows.

          On my laptop, I use a single 1024x768 monitor. I use menu-at-top (aka MacOS style). I load only a few apps, and have them all maximized (in general). I tend to use tabbed browsing significantly more.

          In both I use Konsole (the KDE terminal app) in a uniform manner... lots of tabs, a primary shell, a root shell, and then several task shells. I use the second desktop in both as a place to kick windows that either are running "in the background" (conceptually, a la xmms) or interesting tangents that I ran across while working on a task (web pages found while googling for something else, half finished documents I was working on, etc).

          I also used to be an emacs kinda guy, and now I use vi. I use Kate often as well (the file sidebar is very handy for making small changes to many files).

          It's interesting, because the menubar difference is very natural, and I move back and forth with no difficulty. I can't recall the last time I hunted for the menu with a false start. For the single screen, MacOS style is the best, especially with a eraserhead mouse. For many screens, Windows style is better because I don't have to move across several monitors to hit a menu.

          --
          Evan

        • For whatever reason, Apple apparently did away with most of the Human Interface Guidelines somewhere between Mac OS 8 and Mac OS X. As a result, things are now much more complicated than they need to be. So, if there is a problem with something in Mac OS 9/Mac OS X, blame Apple... not the Human Interface Guidelines they should have been following.

          I agree. I cannot figure out what motivated it. Changes could have easily been made without throwing the whole thing out.

          Anyone know what happened politically
          • Anyone know what happened politically at Apple that resulted in such a change in UI design (from design-for-ultra-usability to design-for-eye-candy)?


            A need to sell. Apple had been promising OS X for many many years (not always in that name) and had failed to deliver. There were lots of high expectations, and when writing a new OS like this, it's obvious your first version released is not going to be up to par. As such, they needed something pretty. Something that looked astheticaly pleaseing to offset th
        • In addition to helping with the plethora of menus you've described, the Macintosh-style menu has a major advantage over the current Windows-style taskbar: Infinite height. More specifically, you cannot "miss" the menus by going to high.

          In contrast, you have to hit the correct horizontal range, but also the correct vertical range, both for Windowed menus, and for taskbar buttons. If you move a long-term Mac user to Windows, they will constantly battle with this, as they're accustomed to just mousing up to t
        • How do I create a new document after closing the last one, without having to relaunch the entire application? With a menu stored entirely within a window, you can't... unless your application displays windows within other windows. Under the Human Interface Guidelines, this isn't an issue. The app continues running until the user decides to kill it himself. As applications get bigger over time, so does their load time.

          Actually this is something that caused me trouble on MacOS - I kept feeling that when I

          • Windows Media Player 9 behaves as a windows application does - when you close the last media player window, the application quits.

            It might sound nice at first, but I would rather have predictable (though possibly un user-friendly) behavior all the time, rather then inconsistancy.

        • Okay, I will grant that there are some good arguments for the Mac-style single-menu interface, but when it comes down to it I PREFER Windows-style menus -- it seems more logical to me.

          A truly great GUI would allow users to select their preference from both kinds of behavior.
      • The concept of only a single window frame with a single menu bar at the top of the screen is easy for new users to grok.

        Sorry, I have always considered this a confusing, bad design. It's a relic of single-tasking from the original Mac OS.

        I always thought this myself comming from the Windows land, however, think of it this way ...

        It is a multi-tasking OS, however, as a user you can only interface with one thing at a time. Hence you can only interfact with a single menu item no matter how many menu

      • Nonetheless, could you live without the scroll-wheel? You must admit that's a worthwhile innovation, and it's astounding that Apple still hasn't appropriated it.

        I'm peeved that nobody has produced a mouse/trackball with a hat switch. Who wants a scroll wheel when you can have a hat switch? This is even more true now that hacks like horizontal scroll wheels are coming out.

        Sorry, I have always considered this a confusing, bad design.

        Second that. It makes perfect sense to someone who has been using a
      • Nonetheless, could you live without the scroll-wheel? You must admit that's a worthwhile innovation, and it's astounding that Apple still hasn't appropriated it.

        Not at all. One of Apple's primary goals is to sell the easiest-to-use computer in the world. A simple, one-button mouse fits that description. Its ergonomically more sound, and can be used much easier by young kids and anyone with motor control difficulties.

        Besides, once you get past 1 button, everyone has their own preference on how many buttio
      • Fitt's law be damned, in a windowing GUI, a window defines the territory of a program, and that's where everything should fit.

        That's exactly what the Mac does, once you understand that part of that window (viz. the menu bar) is conveniently placed at the top of the screen. What they did, you see, is go past your preconception that a "window" has to be connected. [wolfram.com]

    • User testing (Score:4, Insightful)

      by tgibbs (83782) on Tuesday January 27, 2004 @11:15AM (#8099739)
      The difference is that Apple actually tested out their user-interface features on users, rather relying up some designer's theoretical notions. This led to crucial insights like, "it's much faster to access a menu bar that's always at the top of the screen, rather than one that's at the top of a window." Like many aspects of human engineering, this is the sort of thing that seems counter-intuitive, because at first thought it seems more logical to associate the menu with the thing that it affects.
  • I was watching CNN the other day and they were doing a small segment about the Mac anniversary and showed the 1984 commercial. It was the first time I noticed this, but the running girl seems to be wearing an iPod on her hip.
  • by Torgo's Pizza (547926) on Tuesday January 27, 2004 @04:24AM (#8097798) Homepage Journal
    Okay I'll bite. Was Donkey.bas the greatest thing in the world? Heck no. But it isn't as bad as this article makes it out to be. Donkey was never meant to be a true game. It was friggin' demo. I remember running and thinking, okay that's nice. What else is there?

    There was plenty. The PC when it was first introduced ran all the Infocom games at the time. It ran Wizardry and all the Epyx games. Sure it wasn't as homey as the Apple II my friend had, but all the business were buying it.

    I'm opening myself up for -1 Trolls and Overrated, but the PC wasn't *that* bad. It's easy to take a swipe at Gates for something thrown together at the last minute. It's not like he was making Choplifter or anything. In the end, the PC's open architecture that led it to be the computer platform of choice. The C64, Amiga, Atari ST were all great gaming platforms but just couldn't keep up with the ever upgrading of the PC. The roots of today's Half-Life 2, Doom 3's and Counter-Strikes all have roots with that first PC so long ago.

    • by javiercero (518708) on Tuesday January 27, 2004 @04:44AM (#8097856)
      Actually the PC was not "open" at all, IBM was not too happy when the clones started appearing.

      It was copied, that is for sure, but it was far from "open." A plagiarized design doesn't make it "open" in the same fashion that a blown up safe lock box is also an "open" box.

      And most of the games you mention have more in common with the machines you dissed than the actual original PC. I.e. most of the Doom engine was actually developed in NextStep, a lot of the 3DS software that game designers adopted in the 90s come from an Atari ST design program, most of the multi channel audio we know assume as standard was inspired by the Amiga (.mod's were the .mp3's of the 80s! :)), and on and on.... the PC ended up becoming more like the mac, the amiga, and the ST, not the other way around... to the point where current PCs have far more in common with those platforms in "spirit" than the original PC.
      • by Anonymous Coward
        It was copied, that is for sure, but it was far from "open." A plagiarized design doesn't make it "open" in the same fashion that a blown up safe lock box is also an "open" box.


        Um...no, it wasn't plagerized. The people who made the first clone were locked in a room and didn't come out until they finished their clone. All they did was pass the output of their design to people outside of the room who would either say whether the outout of the clone chip was the same as the IBM chip.

        IBM did themselves in
        • I was 16 and working as a stock boy at a computer store hen the first IBM PC clones came out. People would look at them as if they were looking at a piece of alien technology.

          The hardware for the IBM PC was amazingly open, because IBM wanted other companies to make components to fit in the expansion slots. IBM has copyrighted their BIOS, thinking that made the design reliant enough on them. Even if a company copied the hardware, they would have to license the bios.

          Then came a 'clean room' implementatio
      • The computer was open architecture. A collection of parts, with the capability of freely swapping those parts out for others from any vendor. Those parts themselves, such as the Intel chips, were freely available on the open market. Making an IMB PC clone is no more "plagerizing" than making a car would be.

        The BIOS was propriatary and it was the clean room reverse engineering of such that allowed the true clone.

        KFG
      • Agreed. I've always been puzzled by the mutation of the IBM PC in PC folklore from "open-as-in-expandable" to "open-as-in-free." The IBM BIOS was always protected by copyright. EARLY articles about the IBM PC make it clear that "open" referred only to the ability to add interface cards. A lot of early personal computers were "open" in that sense. Indeed, the earliest personal computers were selling dreams in the sense that they didn't have much hardware or software and the purchaser was buying a belief that
      • Being able to program something (graphical no less) in a built-in BASIC is an openess that almost all of today's computers lack...

        The thing about PCs was that the sound and graphics were always an add-on, most other computers had a higher (but less upgradeable) A/V capability out of the box. They were more like gaming consoles in that regard.
    • In the end, the PC's open architecture that led it to be the computer platform of choice. The C64, Amiga, Atari ST were all great gaming platforms but just couldn't keep up with the ever upgrading of the PC.

      How would you explain the success of the consoles, then? They are usually as closed as can be; the upgradability potential of a Sony Playstation nowhere matches the potential of said Amiga. Commodore and Atari failed because of their incredibly foolish marketing, but not because "open" is better than
    • In the end, the PC's open architecture that led it to be the computer platform of choice

      I think you'll find that it was IBM's name that made it the platform of choice - IBM had a reputation for business computing, therefore the IBM PC was a serious computer. It took a long time for the PC architecture to become open, and this happened long after the PC was the platform of choice.

    • I agree with parent.

      When my Dad brought home an XT, my 7-year-old self LOVED to play Donkey. The 16-color textmode graphics may not have been as pretty as what other 8-bit compters of the time were cranking out, but the game was SIMPLE and FUN.

      Remember, the IBM PC belonged to a legacy of BUSINESS computers. It was optimized for working on spreadsheets and driving line printers, not games and entertainment. That came later.
  • by vought (160908) on Tuesday January 27, 2004 @04:32AM (#8097820)
    I started surfing folklore.org earlier this evening and I was nearly finished reading everything when...

    Slashdot hit.

    I had an idea, so checked here withi 20 minutes, and sure enough, it was the banner story. Shit. I was almost done reading the whole story of Macintosh as interpreted by Andy H.
    • It seems like it still hasn't recovered, as of noon Eastern on Tuesday.

      Not a ringing endorsement for its Python backend.

      For that matter, any site dedicated to a computer that has a history of advocacy war better put its house in order, server-wise, because even if the server has nothing to do with the computer system in question, it invites ridicule...
  • by Negative Response (650136) on Tuesday January 27, 2004 @04:33AM (#8097822)
    that the python code running the

    Site is terribly slow, it is running python all right.

  • by Anonymous Coward
    An interview with Andy Hertzfeld [crazyapplerumors.com]
  • by the JoshMeister (742476) on Tuesday January 27, 2004 @04:47AM (#8097866) Homepage Journal

    Here are several other great Apple history resources.

    Sites:

    • www.apple-history.com [apple-history.com] is one of the best Internet sources, with information on every computer Apple ever produced
    • apple.computerhistory.org [computerhistory.org] has year-by-year info on Apple with some cool, hard-to-find pictures

    Books:

    Other:

  • by Dahan (130247) <khym@azeotrope.org> on Tuesday January 27, 2004 @04:50AM (#8097877)
    If you liked DONKEY.BAS [archive.org], try the all new Donkey .NET [microsoft.com]!
  • by MochaMan (30021) on Tuesday January 27, 2004 @05:38AM (#8097988) Homepage
    They are responsible for what I am sure must have been the longest line-up in history [mac.com]!
    • I was born and raised in Orlando, FL, home of many theme parks... I have to say that the line shown in that video rivals all lines I've ever stood in at theme parks (yes, even including "King Kong" when the ride first came out at Universal Studios)!
  • Mac information (Score:3, Interesting)

    by aarku (151823) on Tuesday January 27, 2004 @05:54AM (#8098024) Journal
    http://everymac.com/ [everymac.com] has some good Macintosh information, specs, and history.
  • by Schwarzchild (225794) on Tuesday January 27, 2004 @07:33AM (#8098329)
    Anybody have any idea what happened to this wizard of the Macintosh?
  • by jez9999 (618189) on Tuesday January 27, 2004 @07:38AM (#8098341) Homepage Journal
    "As a plus, Hertzfeld notes in the faq that the python code running the well-designed and easy to navigate site will be made public in the near future."

    Great. Maybe Slashdot could consider using it...
  • by tonywestonuk (261622) on Tuesday January 27, 2004 @08:39AM (#8098486)
    1984 - Apple is Dying

    1988 - Apple is Dying

    1992 - Apple is Dying

    1996 - Apple is Dying

    2000 - Apple is Dying

    2004 - Err, Ipod might save 'em
    • by Artifex (18308)
      2000 - Apple is Dying

      2004 - Err, Ipod might save 'em


      Now with BSD, they'll be dying faster, right? Or longer :)
      BSD's been dying since I was a kid.
  • I remember playing this game when I was about 7, on my grandma's brand-new 286. I thought the object of the game was to hit the donkeys...
  • Serendipity... Just yesterday I came across folklore.org via John Gruber [daringfireball.net] by way of Rainer Brockerhoff [brockerhoff.net] who added this observation of Chris Hanson [livejournal.com]: in 20 years, from the Macintosh 128 to the dual G5, the specs increased thus:

    CPU frequency: 512-fold

    RAM: 4096-fold
    Removable storage: 1792-fold
    VRAM: 3066-fold
    Network speed: 4551-fold
    Mouse buttons: 1-fold
    Price: 1.015-fold

    i.e., they kept the price point.

    As it happens, while advising a friend on how much memory to buy in 2004, I had just looked at how A

  • As a plus, Hertzfeld notes in the faq that the python code running the well-designed and easy to navigate site will be made public in the near future

    What a great site. An important historical record. Perhaps the Python would explain why the site is so slow. Python is a scourge.

Profanity is the one language all programmers know best.

Working...