Why buy a Mac?

[usayit]

Oh yeh.. who here remembers slamming old Apples on the table to get them working again? Heat issues would loosen chips inside and slamming them on the table would "reseat" them... heheh lol .. the memories...

 

[jstuedle]

No, the Com 64 has the record for the sales record for a single model. The Apple II had a few variants to spread the figures around on.

And yes, the original PC came out in Sept 1983, I had one in October. It had a 4.77 Mhz 8088 processor (the XT I think had a 8 Mhz. processor), one H.H. Teac 360K floppy, 64 K ram, AST 6-pack card, Epson FX-80 printer, IBM color graphics card, and a 14" Princeton Graphics color monitor. $5695.00. I was building clones by Christmas and still do.

EDIT: The PC has 5 expansion slots, the XT had 8 and a slightly larger power supply. That and the processor speed were the only differences between the 2.

 

[usayit]

No, the Com 64 has the record for the sales record for a single model. The Apple II had a few variants to spread the figures around on.

no no no... Com 64 was released in the early 80s and the original Apple II was release in 77. IIRC Apple II beat out the Com of 1977 that year but to kick back hard with the Com 64.

And yes, the original PC came out in Sept 1983, I had one in October. It had a 4.77 Mhz 8088 processor (the XT I think had a 8 Mhz. processor), one H.H. Teac 360K floppy, 64 K ram, AST 6-pack card, Epson FX-80 printer, IBM color graphics card, and a 14" Princeton Graphics color monitor. $5695.00. I was building clones by Christmas and still do.

Read my post "There were more traditional "PCs" that predated the PC XT". Meaning the PC you mentioned as opposed to the 8Mhz version. No clue the year but that you supplied (we are getting to the edge of my memory)


But whats the point except for a nice history lesson in computers?

 

[jstuedle]

No point, and I was not arguing. The com 64 numbers I was refering to was total sales, no year to year. But it dosent matter. PC/Mac - Nikon/Canon - Ford/Chevy - Merc/BMW. Whatever. I like my Nikon/PC/Ford, you like what you like. Neither of us are going to change the others mind. If I had my druthers, I would run a PC with no windowZ and just DOS or Sco-Unix. But photo editing would be a little difficult. I like what I like, you like what you like, and I don't care. Nuff said.

 

[Helen B]

the term "True Desktop Computer" is such a bogus loose term...

Yes, I agree - which is why I didn't use the term. Herz was trying to claim that the original Macintosh (not the Apple or Lisa) was the first TDC, and you would have to define 'a true desktop computer' as being nothing other than a Mac for that to be correct.

Does anyone remember the ICL 'Oneper' OPD (One Per Desk). An idea before its time.

Best,
Helen

 

[Atropine]

Actually file extensions were used because of the limitations in the original FAT file system used by DOS. In other words... it had nothing to do with making it easier for users. In fact, Windows by default hides the file extensions.. So yes.. there is rubbish in there but you are spreading it as well. Unix (MAC OS X based on) was already using "magic" numbers that were embedded into the file itself to determine file type. This was a far superior method for assigning file types. Lets not forget the ol'crappy limitation of the 8.3 filename structure.

You wanna go farther... wth is up with batch files? Microsoft is more than capable of implementing a decent procedural based scripting language but they are still stuck with the old batch. Oh even better... why is that most windows applications cannot/or do not take in command line arguments. Even tiny little notepad.exe takes at least a file name.

Do you want to continue to process management... how about provide a seperate protected user space for processes to protect the rest of the machine? Linux, UNIX, OS2 Warp established that a decade ago...

As I said.. got a whole book full.




Looks like it had 1 button too....
http://sloan.stanford.edu/MouseSite/Archive/patent/Mouse.html


Sheesh dude.. it is a mouse.... you wanna keep going about the deficiencies of various Microsoft design.. Drop it already. If that is Apple's worst.. then they aren't doing too bad. How much of vista's interface was inspired by Mac OS X? ( I actually like Microsoft's keyboard the best)

Well that "flaw" is at least an actual beneit to the ui that took Apple ages to adapt. For some weird reason MS chose to make them hidden by default in XP and Vista, but it's easily fixed.

Command line arguments? I really don't think there are a lot of people out there feeling comfortable using them, especially not the presumptive Mac buyers, so why bother making applications using it at all?

And regarding the mouse you linked to. That is not the production mouse used by Computer Displays. That clumsy wooden box is an early prototype made by the inventor. You seem to be an intelligent guy and you should be smart enough to realize that.

 

[usayit]

Well that "flaw" is at least an actual beneit to the ui that took Apple ages to adapt. For some weird reason MS chose to make them hidden by default in XP and Vista, but it's easily fixed.

Hehehe... one man's garbage...

It is still a "flaw" in Windows (current releases)... a flaw that Apple chose to address with the release of MAC OS X (2001 I believe.. same year as XP)

Back then, Apple's complete focus was simplicity and simplistic UI... I personally didn't like it back then (lack of full user control) but several years ago they solved a lot of my grievances by adopting a BSD core.

You can pick each and everyone of my posts all you want (More than happy to discuss) but just don't pick and choose to your liking.... address all of them. Starting with Adminstrator versus User rights (the lack of) and Processes space/management...

Command line arguments? I really don't think there are a lot of people out there feeling comfortable using them, especially not the presumptive Mac buyers, so why bother making applications using it at all?

No one uses it because it hasn't be a good practice on PCs since the days of DOS.

So let me get this straight.. you are actually proposing that the lack of features is a good thing in Windows?

And regarding the mouse you linked to. That is not the production mouse used by Computer Displays. That clumsy wooden box is an early prototype made by the inventor. You seem to be an intelligent guy and you should be smart enough to realize that.

I had to look it up (mouse history?? sheesh) but wikipedia stated that Engelbart worked for SRI and they were the first to implement the mouse with NLS. Later, Apple actually licensed it. Macintosh was released in 1984 with a MOUSE and keyboard. Windows wasn't even released until 1992 (also from wikipedia. Don't hate me i'm bad with dates). The company Computer Displays was ~not~ even mentioned..... Wikipedia also mentioned that Apple experimented with 4 button mice but opted to stay with the single one a few years after Macintosh was released.

So yeh... I misread your post but at least I was smart enough to look it up. Forgive me.. for referencing wikipedia. My mouse history is lacking.. (except for the guys name) I had better things to do..

it is a mouse.... big deal...

 

[doobs]

Here's the benefit: One expensive calculator. And it does a bad job at that too.

Stick to PC's. You can custom build a PC double the speed; perhaps triple the speed of a Mac. At this point in the computer age, you're paying for the pretty case, the logo and the OS.

PS, the OS sucks.

 

[usayit]

OMG.. of all the postings... that was the most brilliant.







MS Corp 52-week range: 26.60 - 37.50
Apple Inc 52 week range: 79.65 - 201.56

 

[domromer]

Here's the benefit: One expensive calculator. And it does a bad job at that too.

Stick to PC's. You can custom build a PC double the speed; perhaps triple the speed of a Mac. At this point in the computer age, you're paying for the pretty case, the logo and the OS.

PS, the OS sucks.

Yeah vista is so much better! I think someone once said speed isn't everything. All the ram in the world doesn't means s&%t if it's always crashing or getting viruses.

 

[shorty6049]

hey guys, dont you remember when this thread died about a week ago??
give it up already

 

[usayit]

yeh.. for you it ended at this point:

Just figured i'd throw this up to illustrate some of what i was talking about... dont let this fuel any further arguement or anything, just good for a chuckle. its a little NSFW (language)
http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=macs_cant

hehehe lol

 

[JerryPH]

Well, my feelings were that before MACs went Intel, they had some *minor* advantange in terms of performance but that was offset by lack of software choices and vast prices differences.

Now that they are Intel based... I see them as another version of Windows... lol.

They still are terribly overpriced, though and software choices are still severely limited compared to the Windows platform.

I am Windows and Intel all the way. In terms of stability, I have an XP workstation that I installed 4 years ago that is running JUST as fast today as it did the day I installed it. I have all the service packs and perhaps 120 or more software installed on it. I have not seen a BSOD, virus, spyware nor crash in 4 years. It is used as my main play compuer, email, picture and video editing and music computer. There are 3 people (myself, my 16 year old niece and father) that often use it. I also access it remotely when at work.

This computer has run 24 hours a day, 7 days a week for a touch over 4 years now and is manually rebooted "just becuase" perhaps once every 6 months.

Reliability is more a function of user knowledge and regular maintenance than base OS stability (my 12 station basement network that has been functional for 3 years, supports this).

Vista? Well, thats a whole other ball of wax. Use it with MS only products and it is excellent in terms of stability... however use anything custom, well, all bets are off. It is just not ready.

If you are a PC user, getting a MAC offers NO advantages over Intel. It does make you pay more for hardware and software, though.

 

[usayit]

Reliability is more a function of user knowledge and regular maintenance than base OS stability (my 12 station basement network that has been functional for 3 years, supports this).

Over a decade of experience in production and software development within UNIX, Windows, Linux environments would change your viewpoint very easily. The interesting thing is that the majority of people I know using MACs were and still are heavily involved in Windows environments. They simply switched for their personal use. Some went from Windows to Linux but needed a better interface. Mac was a perfect medium... BSD core with a well designed UI. I will admit, most of the people I work with are UNIX guys during work hours (UNIX core production supported by Windows servers) so there might be an easier transition between Linux, UNIX and Mac. The people so quickly to dismiss Mac usually have limited experience with Mac or are pulling from a bad experience from over a decade ago.


BTW.. saying that there is absolutely NO advantage on MAC over PC (or other product) is a very BOLD statement. Care to scroll back and answer the questions I posted above and tell me how Windows handles them???? Lets start with simply getting a WIndows PC out of the box with updates mount an NFS share.


But to each there own....