Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Macintosh's 1984 Debut

michael posted more than 10 years ago | from the $2495-cheap dept.

Apple 613

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."

cancel ×

613 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

I SPY (-1, Troll)

Sarojin (446404) | more than 10 years ago | (#8015131)

ON GNAA ALL DAY

A stack of paper? (5, Funny)

BandwidthHog (257320) | more than 10 years ago | (#8015134)

Well, that's a mighty tall stack. Maybe if you'd purchased the original Macintosh with 1 Yen notes, we'd have some equivalency here. (No, I can't be bothered to look up historical exchange rates and do the math. So sue me.)

Re:A stack of paper? (5, Informative)

John Miles (108215) | more than 10 years ago | (#8015334)

It sounds like the journalist at the time was confusing the Mac with the Apple //c [apple-history.com] , which was released around the same time as the first Mac. Not counting its attached monitor, the //c was about the size of a 500-sheet stack of paper.

It was a neat little package, but the Apple II platform's best days were behind it by then, and most people have probably never seen a //c.

Exchange rate (3, Informative)

Uber Banker (655221) | more than 10 years ago | (#8015398)

Around 233.80 Yen/US Dollar in 1984. I would give a link but I looked it up on Reuters. If you have a Reuters terminal just use RIC JPY=.

For reference, it is ~105 Yen. This means in 1984 Japanese products would cost half in US dollar terms tham they do now. [Yeah simplistic, but this is the numerical terms]. Kinda puts pleas by the present administration about the exchange rate into perspective.

Not first (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8015135)

But I've got something important to say:

You're all fags.

Thank you for your time.

Fags.

Durability of the Mac (5, Interesting)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 10 years ago | (#8015139)

We're finally tossing the last of our original Macs. Some are Mac Plus, or a little newer, but it's remarkable how much use one could get out of those things. Can't quite say the same about PC's as we're chucking crates of those that are only 3-5 years old.

Re:Durability of the Mac (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8015196)

I really wish people wouldn't do this. Firstly, you shouldn't throw computers out; they're toxic, they need to be disposed of safely.

Why throw out rare, antique, collector item computers to the bin? A twentysomething twitty fool of a girl at my mother's workplace threw out some early model Acorn Archimedes in the bin without asking anyone. This is how these old computers become rare in the first place.

Re:Durability of the Mac (3, Funny)

grammaticaster (657410) | more than 10 years ago | (#8015328)

Why throw out rare, antique, collector item computers to the bin?

maybe because they're worthless and nobody wants them?

Re:Durability of the Mac (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8015373)

In 100 years they'll probably be worth more than you'll ever make in a lifetime

Re:Durability of the Mac (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8015400)

In 100 years, I'll be too dead to care.

Re:Durability of the Mac (5, Funny)

gumbi west (610122) | more than 10 years ago | (#8015397)

I'm trying to imagine the labratory notebook of the biologist who discovered that computers were toxic:
10.00 AM: computer feed to mouse

10.01 AM: mouse exploded.
Conclusion: computers are toxic.

Re:Durability of the Mac (4, Insightful)

taniwha (70410) | more than 10 years ago | (#8015237)

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

Re:Durability of the Mac (4, Interesting)

Jim Hall (2985) | more than 10 years ago | (#8015254)

We're finally tossing the last of our original Macs. Some are Mac Plus, or a little newer, but it's remarkable how much use one could get out of those things.

A friend of mine last night said he was finally retiring his Mac LC. The hard drive had died, and figured it was time to let it go. I'm not a huge Mac fan, but I have to admit the longevity of these Macs is impressive.

Re:Durability of the Mac (5, Interesting)

Oz Factor (63676) | more than 10 years ago | (#8015259)

Yeah, I agree. The small office that I used to work in still has a Mac SE tucked under a desk that acts as a Fax server and does some NAT routing. Not bad for a 15+ year old computer.

Re:Durability of the Mac (5, Interesting)

Basehart (633304) | more than 10 years ago | (#8015396)

"We're finally tossing the last of our original Macs"

Sounds like Bank Of America talking!

Their branches here in the NW have been running SE's as terminals since the SE was introduced, and I still see them sat on manager desks and in reception areas.

If I was responsible for deciding what hardware replaces those machines I'd be hard pressed to switch to a different manufacturer after using the same Apple hardware for such a long time.

Link to the famous ad? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8015141)

I've never seen the famous Superbowl Mac ad. Can anyone provide a link to it online?

sure (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8015175)

http://www.peoplesdaily.com

Re:Link to the famous ad? (5, Informative)

squarefish (561836) | more than 10 years ago | (#8015178)

http://www.uriah.com/apple-qt/1984.html [uriah.com] and new version [apple.com] : notice the ipod?

Re:Link to the famous ad? (1)

midifarm (666278) | more than 10 years ago | (#8015309)

I love the iPod in the regurgitated version!

Peace

The Ad (4, Informative)

anarchima (585853) | more than 10 years ago | (#8015210)

http://www.apple-history.com/movies/1984.mov [apple-history.com]

Plus, a neato article on it here: http://www.duke.edu/~tlove/mac.htm [duke.edu]

Re:The Ad (1)

inertia@yahoo.com (156602) | more than 10 years ago | (#8015280)

Slashdotted? Anyway, it's 404. Apple re-released it:

http://www.apple.com/hardware/ads/1984/

You just have to ignore the digital alteration they made (they added something).

I remember all of this (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8015144)

I remember all of this, and one of the things quite a few people said at the time

"This is the end of apple. They're dead"

heh. Apple. Going out of business since 1977

Re:I remember all of this (4, Interesting)

questamor (653018) | more than 10 years ago | (#8015296)

Here's a link to a google newsgroups search [google.com.au] for all the mentions of Macintosh up until January 24 1984. It's all the same rumormongering that goes on before Apple's releases today, just shifted a fifth of a century back.

Some things don't change :)

Re:I remember all of this (1)

Brendor (208073) | more than 10 years ago | (#8015393)

I heard that a language called "Classcal" would be available as some sort of mix ( please, try not to get sick ) between Pascal and Smalltalk. Has anyone else heard rumors like this one?

I read this in the google newsgroup archive [google.com.au] and I did so fast enough that I thoght it said Classic(Like the OS X OS 9 emulation environment).

Which is funny.

Innovation (4, Interesting)

gtrubetskoy (734033) | more than 10 years ago | (#8015146)

The first Apple computers and the Mac were very innovative indeed.

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! And while MS was improving Windows (added multitasking, threading, nicer GUI), Apple was stagnating - little new was being introduced in their MacOS, Jobs quit.

These days Apple is innovating (OS X, iTunes, iPod, etc), and MS is stagnating.

Give it another few years, and the tables will turn again....

Re:Innovation (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8015168)

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!

Actually considering both apple and microsoft stole the GUI from Xerox Parc (go look it up) I don't think you could call either innovative

And while MS was improving Windows (added multitasking, threading, nicer GUI), Apple was stagnating - little new was being introduced in their MacOS, Jobs quit.

Jobs was kicked out around 1986, from memory. That was WAY before windows began to get a GUI remotely near Apple's. 3.11 was a tragedy, and 95 got it right.

Re:Innovation (2, Interesting)

the_2nd_coming (444906) | more than 10 years ago | (#8015256)

actually...if you looked it up, you would see that Apple payed in stock for the ability to look at the stuff Xerox was doing and was given the ability to use anything they saw.

there was no steeling, except on the part of MS....well that was more of a poorly worded agreement on the part of Mr. Pepsi who was running apple at the time.

Re:Innovation (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8015264)

yeah, but microsoft *actually* stole mac intellectual property from apple, as in lifted extensive technical documents and carried them surreptitiously out the door and back to seattle where they were put to use developing software. it makes me laugh every time billg spouts on about intellectual property.

Re:Innovation (1)

Unknown Lamer (78415) | more than 10 years ago | (#8015302)

Actually considering both apple and microsoft stole the GUI from Xerox Parc (go look it up) I don't think you could call either innovative

Seeing how Xerox stole the interface from the Lisp Machine...

Sorry, had to. Please ignore this post.

Re:Innovation (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8015188)

Jobs quit

OK.. You're officially clueless!

Re:Innovation (1, Insightful)

Quarters (18322) | more than 10 years ago | (#8015218)

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.

Re:Innovation (1)

the_2nd_coming (444906) | more than 10 years ago | (#8015239)

Jobs did not quit....he was fired by that Pepsi guy and in protest he surrender his controlling hares in the company.

Lost consonants (2, Funny)

adamsan (606899) | more than 10 years ago | (#8015404)

"in protest he surrender his controlling hares in the company."

Damn those controlling hares...

Re:Innovation (5, Informative)

gwernol (167574) | more than 10 years ago | (#8015306)

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!

Of course Windows 1.0 was not the first attempt to do this. Don't forget such wonders as IBM's TopView [langreiter.com] , Quarterdeck's Desq [fortunecity.com] , Digital Research's GEM [geocities.com] and a number of others. For a while in the early/mid 1980's there was a swirl of innovation and copying (not to mention a lawsuit [wikipedia.org] or two) as people tried to bring the Xerox-invented GUI to desktop computers.

Re:Innovation (1)

dnahelix (598670) | more than 10 years ago | (#8015327)

Win95=Mac '84

Re:Innovation (0)

kfg (145172) | more than 10 years ago | (#8015330)

As a general rule I define "innovative" as something that hasn't been done before. Ideally this innovation should also advance the state of the art.

Apple has done a modicum of technical innovating in it's day, but far less than it's generally given credit for, and virtually all of Microsoft's innovations have been in commercial terms, not technical ones.

If I build a car with tiller steering and a year later install a steering wheel I may well have improved my car design, but only insofar as I have finally brought it up to existing standards of interface and performance.

And the louder I trumpet my "innovation" the more I look the fool.

KFG

Mod parent down- He doesn't know (3, Informative)

qewl (671495) | more than 10 years ago | (#8015351)

He doesn't know what he's talking about.

1. Jobs did not quit- he was voted out of his own company, many saying he was too hard on his employees until 1997 when he returned to Apple as CEO
2. It is doubtful the tables will turn to Apple again. Ever heard of Linux?
3. Apple made lots of mistakes early on. They did not almost go out of business because Microsoft had a superior product.

Check out this article [historyhouse.com] for further information.

It looks like... (-1, Offtopic)

tomcrick (687765) | more than 10 years ago | (#8015152)

...an iPod!

Progress? (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8015154)

My Mac is still about the size of a stack of paper, and still has a little more power than the basic IBM PC. You'd think in 20 years we'd have seen some progress!

Re:Progress? (4, Funny)

midifarm (666278) | more than 10 years ago | (#8015323)

I think the proper thing to say is that it's now powered by IBM! Hmmm, it's in a way become an IBM PC!!!

The size of a stack of paper, eh? (0, Funny)

Rorschach1 (174480) | more than 10 years ago | (#8015155)

Well, my mid tower fits that description. At a glance, I'd say it's about the size of a 4000 sheet stack.

Still works (0)

zackeller (653801) | more than 10 years ago | (#8015156)

And the great thing is, most of those old Macs still function. I'd like to see you bring out a working PC from 1984.

Re:Still works (1)

hxnwix (652290) | more than 10 years ago | (#8015219)

"bring out?" I need only turn my gramps's XT on... it's been on the same desk, plugged in to the same socket since 1983. Still runs lotus 1-2-3 like the day it arrived.

Re:Still works (2, Interesting)

Quarters (18322) | more than 10 years ago | (#8015236)

My brother has an Atari 2600 that's even older (1980-81, I think) and it sill works. I, until recently had an original Amiga 1000 from that era that worked without a hitch, and I know many people with working C-64s from then. There's no reason to believe that an 8086, 8088, 80286, etc.. wouldn't still work fine today if it was taken care of.

Re:Still works (1)

Luigi30 (656867) | more than 10 years ago | (#8015385)

My Atari 2600 is one of the original ones, with the heavy RF shielding. It is from about 1979 I think.

If its taken care of... (2, Insightful)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 10 years ago | (#8015298)

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:If its taken care of... (2, Interesting)

bckrispi (725257) | more than 10 years ago | (#8015361)

Actually, the drives of my first 286 ran the last time I tested them. The fricking things are armored like a tank and weigh a ton, so I'm sure that has something to do with their longevity. The PC itself, alas, wasn't so fortunate. The BIOS wasn't powered by a NiCad battey, but by two AA alkalines. One day, I powered it on only to see a strange grey haze on the monitor screen. I opened the case (which also weighed a ton, btw) to find that the batteries had leaked right onto the chipset. It was a sad day...

Re:Still works (1)

higuy48 (568572) | more than 10 years ago | (#8015313)

They function if you store them well enough. I can't work my old Apple IIgs because the cables are torn up. By the way, if anyone can help me with the commands for KEGS32 IIGS emulator, it would be much appreciated.

Re:Still works (1)

MrP- (45616) | more than 10 years ago | (#8015349)

I found a 1982 IBM pc, 20mhz i think (or was it 10?) in a dumpster not long ago, it worked fine

Stack of paper?? (2, Insightful)

k4_pacific (736911) | more than 10 years ago | (#8015163)

'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."

Macintosh - An Opinion (5, Interesting)

ten000hzlegend (742909) | more than 10 years ago | (#8015164)

The Macintosh appealed to everyone who had the cash really, remember, 1984 still had the ring of niche markets and professional roles in computing, games demoted to the Commodore 64 amongst others

I remember seeing the first Mac in school around 1990, it was bought in 1985 with the UK introduction and people asked where it all sat, what did it do etc...

http://www.theapplemuseum.com/index.php?id=tam&p ag e=personal&subpage=mac

A great page for somemore Apple history, especially technical details and those legendary Code Names!

Re:Macintosh - An Opinion (1)

midifarm (666278) | more than 10 years ago | (#8015348)

I think it appealed to everyone. Cash was just needed to buy one. Then again most computers required cash except maybe a Vic20 or the Sinclair!

1984 Commercial (4, Interesting)

coolmacdude (640605) | more than 10 years ago | (#8015174)

I like Apple's remake of their famous 1984 ad [apple.com] . This time the woman wears an iPod.

Re:1984 Commercial (2, Funny)

WalterSobchak (193686) | more than 10 years ago | (#8015355)

Was I entirely out of the loop? I did not notice that before, and thought this was the original ad...

Or am I just drinking too much?

Alex

The Wintel world needs the Mac... (2, Insightful)

Genghis9 (575560) | more than 10 years ago | (#8015182)

...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.

Good ole Steve (1)

barenaked (711701) | more than 10 years ago | (#8015187)


As this article made clear, there was an
infectious and inspirational spirit behind the
birth of the Macintosh, which has lasted to
this day, as does the continuing chorus of
industry doubters predicting trouble for
Apple. At least some things in the computer
industry never seem to change.

Steve Jobs is betting the new M
acintosh will help win the holy war against
IBM.

Re:Good ole Steve (1)

grammaticaster (657410) | more than 10 years ago | (#8015389)

Steve Jobs is betting the new M acintosh will help win the holy war against IBM.

haha ... you mean the one with the ibm processor?

Boy! (1)

thejackol (642922) | more than 10 years ago | (#8015191)

To know there were people who actually bought sex for $2,495 in the 80s!

When one takes the Mac home, said one market watcher, ``It's not a one-night stand. You fall in love with it.''

..and still they use a one button mouse... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8015194)

..and no good games.. ..get with the program Apple!

Re:..and still they use a one button mouse... (2, Informative)

midifarm (666278) | more than 10 years ago | (#8015362)

I play all of Blizzard's titles on my Mac. Most of the other ones I'll use a PS2 or a GameCube.

It's all about gameplay, not just pretty graphics!

Peace

Mac Opinion (5, Insightful)

Upaut (670171) | more than 10 years ago | (#8015198)

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.

Gee (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8015222)

What a fucking original sentiment!

+5 Informasightful!

Re:Mac Opinion (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8015228)

Right brain / left brain? I'd always thought of it as being that Macs were computers by / for people who were neurologically female, but into computers anyway. No, I'm not trolling, this is real neurology.

The whole focus of the Mac is towards people who are stimulated by social and sensory things like colours, art, style, etc. The PC has always been aimed at neurologically male males. This has alot to do with why Apple's marketshare is jammed so low - they're both produced by and aimed at a demographic rarity. And despite all the rubbish trolling on Slashdot about Apple being the "gay" computer, there is probably a good demographic chance that a far higher proportion of male Mac users are homosexual than of PC users - simply because of the femminine neurological characteristics the Mac clicks with in people.

Re:Mac Opinion (0, Troll)

inertia@yahoo.com (156602) | more than 10 years ago | (#8015352)

I think the "I'm not trolling" trolls are the best kind of troll. Some of them really don't believe they're trolling. No, I'm not trolling about you not thinking you're trolling.

Homosexual? (1)

midifarm (666278) | more than 10 years ago | (#8015381)

If Macs appeal to the feminine side of the world and homosexual males does that mean that lesbians like PC's???

Re:Mac Opinion (3, Insightful)

KrispyKringle (672903) | more than 10 years ago | (#8015277)

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.

Re:Mac Opinion (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8015335)

I think your view held true for many years, when the Macintosh was mostly used by the
  • artist (both graphic and music)
  • publishing (until a few years ago, Macs were pretty much the standard in pre-press)
  • education (Mac used to dominate in the K-12 market; somewhat less so now but still a signifigant player.)
I expect education market share to climb again, as educators realize that the tools provided free with OS X are well suited to general high-school programming courses). OS X also plays rather well in a mixed environment, so it's cost-effective to experiment with them.

Re:Mac Opinion (1)

James in Iowa (540361) | more than 10 years ago | (#8015380)

I'll agree with the engineering vs. graphic design. I think its more to do with the fact that engineers care more about power/dollar then artists do; artists it seems care more about ease of use/dollar.

Anyway I'd say the tide is changing since the fourth(?) fastest supercomputer, Virginia Tech's X [apple.com] is a cluster of G5s.

Not any more (2, Insightful)

CoolMoDee (683437) | more than 10 years ago | (#8015394)

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:Mac Opinion (1)

LinuxIsStillBetter (536524) | more than 10 years ago | (#8015402)

My recollection is that the mac vs. pc decision was based on price and applications, pure and simple. So, maybe in that regard I agree. Engineers tend to work in largish groups so lower prices mean the same budget dollars can cover more computers.

The functional differences between Macs and Peecees in 2004 are insignificant compared to what they were in 1984. Oddly, this seems to be because of Mac features migrating to PC's rather than the other way 'round... ;-)

Stephen E. Jobs writes... (4, Funny)

coolmacdude (640605) | more than 10 years ago | (#8015202)

Funny, I never thought Steve was the type to whore about his achievements on Slashdot.

Re:Stephen E. Jobs writes... (1)

gwernol (167574) | more than 10 years ago | (#8015243)

Actually his name is Steven P. Jobs. Just FYI.

Re:Stephen E. Jobs writes... (1)

coolmacdude (640605) | more than 10 years ago | (#8015308)

Yeah, I can't believe someone actually modded that insightful. :)

Re:Stephen E. Jobs writes... (2, Informative)

JoshWurzel (320371) | more than 10 years ago | (#8015257)

Silly psuedonyms. You're referring to Steven P. Jobs [vt.edu]

If you RTFA you learn stuff like... (0)

qrash (63400) | more than 10 years ago | (#8015207)

'and is directed by a mouse - a handheld device that, when slid across a table top, moves the cursor on the Mac's screen'

Interesting...

well (1)

acxr is wasted (653126) | more than 10 years ago | (#8015211)

I know it's corny, but there really has never been a system that has rolled with the punches as well as the Mac. I hope for twenty more years and beyond.

Mac's Popularity (4, Interesting)

mick88 (198800) | more than 10 years ago | (#8015215)

After all these years, I still wonder two things:
1) why hasn't the Mac done better?
2) why hasn't the Mac died?
I know the standard answer to why Mac is still around is "Small but loyal group of devotees", but I have trouble with that idea.

If it is good enough to inspire fanatical loyalty in some, why hasn't it been good enough to win over the rest of the world? And, having failed in winning over the world, how can apple still afford to be in the business?

Dunno. I always did like Macs, myself. Always met my needs.

Re:Mac's Popularity (2, Insightful)

JoshWurzel (320371) | more than 10 years ago | (#8015337)

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.

Re:Mac's Popularity (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8015340)

Ever looked at the price of a mac?

Re:Mac's Popularity (2, Insightful)

Mwongozi (176765) | more than 10 years ago | (#8015391)

> 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.

Re:Mac's Popularity (1)

Master Bait (115103) | more than 10 years ago | (#8015347)

1) why hasn't the Mac done better?
I think it has always been a point of price, especially in the business/office world. 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.

2) why hasn't the Mac died?
Innovation, I'd say.

POINT AND CLICK???? (5, Insightful)

armando_wall (714879) | more than 10 years ago | (#8015221)

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:POINT AND CLICK???? (4, Informative)

zaffir (546764) | more than 10 years ago | (#8015415)

What Jobs did was realize that Xerox had something special on their hands. Xerox had no plans to actually do anything with the idea.

Amiga forever! (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8015240)

Who cares? Amiga had it all over the mac, at every point in time. not only was the Amiga a better computer, but the Amiga could run ALL mac software NATIVELY, and FASTer than the Mac to boot!

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, which was never even available for the Mac!

Re:Amiga forever! (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8015370)

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:Amiga forever! (4, Insightful)

Saven Marek (739395) | more than 10 years ago | (#8015407)

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?

IN SOVIET RUSSIA (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8015263)

PAPER STACkS YOU!

Forshadowing of Apple's 20 year problem (5, Insightful)

bckrispi (725257) | more than 10 years ago | (#8015265)

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.

Well, it took 20 years... (5, Interesting)

teamhasnoi (554944) | more than 10 years ago | (#8015286)

but I am now and forever more going to use Macs. When OS X came with a mac we got for work, I gave it a shot, and have never looked back. I bought a 15" AL Powerbook last year and it has been the best computing experience ever.

Sure, back in the day, I had an Apple IIgs, and used Apple II computers at school - but when I got out on my own, I built a PC (for games of course).

Now that my gaming has been replaced by other things, I find that my last objection to going to Mac is moot. Of course, this is even more moot (can that happen?), because there is a fine selection of games available for the Mac.

I still would like to see GTA for the mac, as that is one you can play for 10 min, or ten days...

My last PC will be my last.

I look forward to see what else Apple will improve - I still think that I should never have to wait for anything on a computer, that I should be able to comunicate with it in plain language, and that it remains a tool for me, rather than a 'content delivery and licensing kiosk' like many of our Windows friends are ending up with.

Shut up, you had me at hello. *tear*

heh.

Re:Well, it took 20 years... (1)

mick88 (198800) | more than 10 years ago | (#8015325)

I am intrigued... what is it that has you switched back? I haven't used a Mac in a while (been happy with RH9/KDE) so I could use some solid info on what it does for ya.

Remake of the classic "1984" ad (3, Informative)

Gothic_Walrus (692125) | more than 10 years ago | (#8015331)

For those of you who haven't seen it, here is Apple's way of commemorating their 20th anniversary:

http://www.apple.com/hardware/ads/1984/

There's just one subtle difference...

What is this Microsoft you speak of? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8015344)

From the article: "Within the next few months, Microsoft Inc., a Bellvue, Wash. software publisher closely allied with IBM, is scheduled to introduce a spreadsheet package for making financial projections, a graphing package and the Basic programming language."

Finally, the REAL story. (4, Insightful)

metalligoth (672285) | more than 10 years ago | (#8015364)

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.

My Last PC... (3, Interesting)

NeoGeo64 (672698) | more than 10 years ago | (#8015376)

My next computer will be an Apple *Mac or *Book.

I really don't mind using Windows XP; it's stable enough for me -- but I'm looking towards the future...

I think Longhorn is really going to be a prison for it's users.

Don't get me wrong, I think light-use-DRM is fair (e.g. iTunes Music Store) but Microsoft is just plain evil. They want to control your BIOS, your computer and your life.

Hell, after 2006 when this Trusted Computing platform comes out, don't be surprised to see that you can't install Linux or any other UNIX variant on your machine because the BIOS won't let you. That box won't be yours, it'll be Microsoft's. Ever wondered why that little icon on your desktop was called My Computer? Maybe you should read the EULA better!

I honestly wouldn't be surprised if Apple had double digit marketshare by 2010.

An Amazing Read (5, Interesting)

MBCook (132727) | more than 10 years ago | (#8015379)

I've got to say that was a VERY interesting read. I'm just under 21 so I didn't pay much attention to the Macintosh's launch at the the time. But reading the article, it's amazing how much the (computer) world has changed. They have to describe what things like icons are, and what a mouse is. Today it's almost unfathomable that someone wouldn't know what a mouse it. Some of the technical specs are interesting too. It seems so weird that things were specified in BYTES then. I realize it made sense but can you imagine what it would be like to go to a computer store and ask for a 40,000,000,000 disk drive? I also have to say the description of being "the size of a stack of paper" seems very odd to me, as when I think of a stack of paper I think of something the size of a book at max, but still. Weirdest of all is describing Microsoft and where they are located (Seattle). These days people don't write about a Seattle software company named Microsoft, they write about MS because we ALL know who MS is.

Seeing the introduction of some things from the past can be facinating in how much our world has changed. But in this case, it's especially interesting in how FAST it's changed. I'm sitting here typing on a laptop that is a year or two old. That said my laptop (for about that price, ignoring inflation) has a hard drive that's half a million times larger than the machine's RAM, has more power than a building full of old Macs running together weighs 1/3 (or less) what that mac did, can do TONS of other things that the Mac could never dream of, and my laptop is OLD AND OUT OF DATE. Of course, I owe a HUGE amount of this stuff to that little Mac (which I have 4 of im my basement ;). Go Apple!

other magazines (3, Interesting)

savetz (201597) | more than 10 years ago | (#8015382)

For other perspectives, see Creative Computing magazine [atarimagazines.com] : Apple Mac review and Compute magazine [atarimagazines.com] : Apple's Macintosh Unveiled

Dupe! (2, Funny)

ath0mic (519762) | more than 10 years ago | (#8015403)

Oh wait... /. wasn't around in 1984; heck most /. readers weren't around in 1984.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?