Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Happy 20th Birthday!

20 year anniversary

ever since steve jobs came back to Apple, it seems like their marketing scheme has been one that pronounces EXCLUSIVISM. The lack of "hoopla" over the 20 year anniversary goes along with that idea.
I do strongly disagree with their scheme. Its so apparent with the way they offer cutting edge products that entice prospective buyers all the way up to the time the newer better products come out.

-Even enticing buyers despite rumor pages like these, that clearly inform buyers that new products are coming out.
How many readers in these pages exclaim how much they would love to get a new product that is in the pipeline, but will settle for the current powerbook, powermac, or imac gems available?

i think its despicable the way Apple squeezes every last drop of life out of its products. Then SMACK- heres the newer better stuff sucker!!! Oh by the way, there is Apple care available for your completely outdated product for over a fifth of what the newer better product would cost. Some may suggest that this practice is very essential to development at Apple. Is it?
Unfortunately, as good as Apple computers are, they are not in business for US. They are in business for themselves. So, if we Mac users want the best computers on the planet, we must acquiesce.
 
Re: I doubt there will be new updates...

Originally posted by Thor74
Every time someone says "a buddy of mine that works at Apple told..." I get annoyed.. LOL Realistically G5 updates are approaching any day now. In order for Steve NOT to get mud in his face, At least by August 31 or so, he has to announce 3 gigahertz G5's by end of summer 2004 as promised last year. That means Apple would like most to have a new line out for about 6 months before that of intermediate speed bumps from what we have now. No matter what, by the end of Feb. we will get our G5 updates. It could be Monday, but I doubt it. I am thinking mid to late Feb. But I am dying to dump my dualie 867 and jump into a new midrange 2.2-2.3 dulie when Apple finally does announce them.
Click to expand...

Thor old buddy, when you do get to dump your old powermac, I would really appreciate it if you would dump it in my apartment. That goes for all of you.
 
Originally posted by Krizoitz
Correct, followed by Petabyte
Click to expand...

Here is how size goes for computer memory.

Bit (b)
Kilobit (Kb)
Megabit (Mb)
Gigabit (Gb)
---
Byte (B)
KiloByte (KB)
MegaByte (MB)
GigaByte (GB)
TeraByte (TB) - 1024GB
PetaByte (PB) - 1024TB
ExaByte (EB) - 1024PB (1EB = 1073741824GB) <-- That is a sh*t load of memory.
ZettaByte (ZB) - 1024EB
YottaByte (YB) - 1024ZB

I chose Exabyte for homage to Marathon. Any old skool mac'er should get it. Hope that helps.
 
Originally posted by Samurai980
Here is how size goes for computer memory....
.....024GB
PetaByte (PB) - 1024TB
ExaByte (EB) - 1024PB (1EB = 1073741824GB) <-- That is a sh*t load of memory.
ZettaByte (ZB) - 1024EB
YottaByte (YB) - 1024ZB
Click to expand...

You forgot "SB" - SkeeterByte - 1024YB
 
lisa v mac

hey, according to that article from SFgate.com, the lisa and mac teams were rivals. i thought the lisa was just a primitive version of the mac...anyone know how that worked out?

El_G
 
Re: lisa v mac

Originally posted by el_grapadora
hey, according to that article from SFgate.com, the lisa and mac teams were rivals. i thought the lisa was just a primitive version of the mac...anyone know how that worked out?

El_G
Click to expand...

Steve decided to promote friendly competition within the business to come up with better stuff. And so far it has worked very well. Hes used it several times in OS development.

Anyways the Lisa was different from the Macintosh in forms of how the hardware and software interfaced. When the Mac came around it had several major advantages over the Lisa and it showed a much more promising future.

So Steve decided to go with the Macintosh and had the Lisa team join with the Mac team. He did this also with the OS 8 and Rhapsody teams as well. Whoever won, got the other team's members.
 
As an Amazon Associate, MacRumors earns a commission from qualifying purchases made through links in this post.
Originally posted by mike412
Happy Birthday Mac!!!!!!
You guys at Apple rock!!!

(By the way, you guys should watch the video of the 20th anniversary of Mac on CNN.com, its pretty darn good)

Just got my iPod on tuesday, and I'm loving it!!!

Thanks Apple
Click to expand...

Originally posted by hotwire132002
I would except for the $10/month viewing thing--is there a free way? I know, I'm cheap.:D
Click to expand...

yeah, there is a free way. i don't have an account, and i watched it. there is a link off of the 20th anniversary of mac story. Or you can go to www.cnn.com/video and then click on sci-tech on the right of the screen. then a popup window comes up and then click on the 20th anniversary video. Enjoy!
 
One of our authors at a norwegian Mac-portal found a "secret message" in Apples 1984 reposted movie. If you look closely on the monitor in the commercial, you will see the date 1.26.04. Which is tomorrow. This MUST be a sign from Apple.

Check our article about the following (in norwegian, but with pictures)
http://mac1.no/community/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=454&mode=&order=0&thold=0

This is the same as AppleInsider found! WOWOWOWOW! You can check for yourselves.. 42 seconds out in the movie, look at the big screen!
 
Originally posted by favpseudonym
i dont think many people agree with your view- myself included. Did Ford kill the Mustang when they went electronic fuel injection? DId Colnago kill the C-40 when they added HP chainstays? Its called technology my friend.
The Mac is not dead, its simply better and more advanced.
Click to expand...

Also, remember that there is the "Mac OS" and the "Mac". If you wanted to argue that the "Mac OS" is not fundamentally the same, go ahead, but you'd probably not succeed, as the OS is not defined by it's root (pun intended) -- it is determined by the way the computer interacts with it. In the Mac OS, this has not changed much since the earliest Mac. You open the drive, see a window, double-click on a document, an application opens, etc.

You can't argue that the "Mac" is changed. Macs have always been the same; priced higher than PeeCees, more durable and elegant-looking than PeeCees, and (generally) faster than PeeCees. This (hopefully ;) ) will never change.
 
Originally posted by Mats
One of our authors at a norwegian Mac-portal found a "secret message" in Apples 1984 reposted movie. If you look closely on the monitor in the commercial, you will see the date 1.26.04. Which is tomorrow. This MUST be a sign from Apple.

Check our article about the following (in norwegian, but with pictures)
http://mac1.no/community/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=454&mode=&order=0&thold=0

This is the same as AppleInsider found! WOWOWOWOW! You can check for yourselves.. 42 seconds out in the movie, look at the big screen!
Click to expand...

I think that's false. Here's a picture I took (Cmd-Shift-4) of the movie. It looks like it could go either way... :rolleyes:

Look at the "8" or "0" after looking away from the screen a few times, then you'll probably come to the conclusion that there could be a crossbar in the middle of the "0" shaped number:
 

Attachments

  • 1984_movie.jpg
    1984_movie.jpg
    25.3 KB · Views: 794
I don't think it's false, but if you check the original movie it also has the same date...

Could the 0 actually be an 8?

01.26.84

But why 26?

Anyway, a release would be very cool :)
 
The real news will come from Arn in about 3 hours.. he always gets the last second scoop!

No doubt, something's going to happen tomorrow.. but what?!?
 
The date in the 1984 date has NOT been modified in my opinion.

THE ORIGINAL 1984 Ad had the date "1/26/84" displayed on the screen.

The reposted 1984 Ad has the same date displayed (1/26/84).

I'm guessing it was pulled from AI because it was considered to be false.

This has already been posted. Please see: https://www.macrumors.com/pages/2004/01/20040109022820.shtml You guys need to read Page 2 more often. ;)

arn
 
Originally posted by favpseudonym
i dont think many people agree with your view- myself included. Did Ford kill the Mustang when they went electronic fuel injection? DId Colnago kill the C-40 when they added HP chainstays? Its called technology my friend.
The Mac is not dead, its simply better and more advanced.
Click to expand...

Well, the new OS X "Mac" has a lot more in common with the old NeXT computer than it does with the original Mac. I used a NeXT machine years ago and OS X feels more NeXT-like to me. For example, the old NeXT system had an application dock that works very much like the OS X one. The column view of the Finder was also found on the NeXT box. And, the OS X mail application seems very familiar. OS X does contain a lof the NeXT OS code and very little Mac code.

In my eyes, the new Mac is really an evolved NeXT box, which is perfectly okay in my book. The original Mac served us well and got us to where we are now. I work with both PCs and Macs, and when Windows 2000 came out, my heart went out to Apple because for the first time, I felt that Microsoft had the better solution. But then OS X was released and all was right in the world again... Apple was back on top... with an OS that was derived from NeXTStep.

I guess my point is that the term "Macintosh" has more to do with marketing these days than with describing the technology that we're now using. Or maybe it's more than just marketing... maybe "Macintosh" refers to a design philosophy and state of mind, which I'll agree is alive and well at Apple.
 
Originally posted by iPost
Well, the new OS X "Mac" has a lot more in common with the old NeXT computer than it does with the original Mac. I used a NeXT machine years ago and OS X feels more NeXT-like to me. For example, the old NeXT system had an application dock that works very much like the OS X one. The column view of the Finder was also found on the NeXT box. And, the OS X mail application seems very familiar. OS X does contain a lof the NeXT OS code and very little Mac code.

In my eyes, the new Mac is really an evolved NeXT box, which is perfectly okay in my book. The original Mac served us well and got us to where we are now. I work with both PCs and Macs, and when Windows 2000 came out, my heart went out to Apple because for the first time, I felt that Microsoft had the better solution. But then OS X was released and all was right in the world again... Apple was back on top... with an OS that was derived from NeXTStep.

I guess my point is that the term "Macintosh" has more to do with marketing these days than with describing the technology that we're now using. Or maybe it's more than just marketing... maybe "Macintosh" refers to a design philosophy and state of mind, which I'll agree is alive and well at Apple.
Click to expand...

Or maybe Apple has matured:

1) Baby-hood - Apple-era computers
2) Childhood - the Mac, OS 1-9.2.2
3) Adolescence - the PowerMacs, OS 10-10.x.x


then...
4) Adulthood (maturity) - new generation of processors (no more Gs), OS XXX (;) )
just kidding

5) Old age (never will happen... hopefully)
 
Or maybe it's more than just marketing... maybe "Macintosh" refers to a design philosophy and state of mind, which I'll agree is alive and well at Apple. [/B][/QUOTE]

-well put
 
UI quibbles

Originally posted by Krizoitz
I still disagree, alot of new computer users I know find the controls easier, and while the widgets should be seperated they don't need to be so spread out you have to go to different corners.

I have read Tog's stuff and I agree with alot of it, but I don't think he is the final say on UI. Just because he would do it one way doesn't mean that another way isn't good, just that he doesn't think so.

And yes Apple has tried to make the Mac more visually appealing, but thats nothing new. They added color in System 7, and more in Mac OS 8.
Click to expand...

I also disagree with Tog on some things, and I don't worship him as the UI god -- that reference was just for those who don't know anything about UI design. However, separating the red button from the others is a basic real-world ease-of-use principle. Exactly how one implements that principle can be argued; the basic principle cannot, IMHO.

The window controls are now labeled better than in 9, no question, and that makes it easier for beginners to learn. But again -- in terms of UI efficiency, it's two steps forward and one step back. They couldn't separate the red button from the others by even a half-inch, because that would have messed with SJ's precious traffic-light analogy. I'm not saying 9's layout should have been retained -- I'm saying that in X, Apple could have done better than they did, had eye-candy not been the overriding concern.

I have no problem with eye-candy. I love the new look, I really do! It just seems to me that the Apple's approach should have been: "Let's make it as visually appealing as possible, without violating basic UI principles."

I like X very much, and it will only get better as time goes on. Most everything I don't like about X could be classified as a quibble. However, I feel compelled to respond to those who seem to equate "visually appealing" with good UI design.
 
Originally posted by iPost

I guess my point is that the term "Macintosh" has more to do with marketing these days than with describing the technology that we're now using. Or maybe it's more than just marketing... maybe "Macintosh" refers to a design philosophy and state of mind, which I'll agree is alive and well at Apple.
Click to expand...

Exactly. It just seems to me that part of the die-hard "if its not OS 9 its not a Mac" people were afraid of change. Change is good, its not always smooth, but it works out. Apple needs to try new things, otherwise we aren't going to know if the way we USED to do it is better or worse. Some things were better the OS 9 way and they fixed those (spring loaded folders, an actually Apple menu, labels?, etc) And some things (like column view) are better, heck even OS X has itself evolved, search bar in the windows is great OS 9 never had that, and the new sidebar is better, imho, than the top bar. Yes I missed tabbed windows at first, but now I just put folders in the dock, and it works just as good. And at first I was scared of the whole one window navigation style, but now its so much cleaner and you can have more windows if you want. Truely one only ever needs two windows open at a time for all but the most rare occasions as far as I have found. I have been a Mac user all my life, seriously I'm only a couple years older than the Mac and I remember growing up using Macs and Apple //e's. I feel like the Mac and I are brothers, and like my brothers once the Mac passed that awkward adolescent stage (OS 8, 9, 10.0 10.1) its finally maturing into a brother I can be proud of!
 
Originally posted by iPost
I guess my point is that the term "Macintosh" has more to do with marketing these days than with describing the technology that we're now using. Or maybe it's more than just marketing... maybe "Macintosh" refers to a design philosophy and state of mind, which I'll agree is alive and well at Apple.
Click to expand...

This might be a really fair way to look at it. There's a fun 1983 Byte interview with the Mac team here. A lot of what they talk about is specific to the hardware challenges of the time, but their basic goals in the project still appear in the current product line.

The major goals I see in there were

- affordability, which I think the eMac and iBook still have pretty well covered.

- put the smarts into peripherals so that less stuff has to be run from an internal bus. It was RS-422 back then, but USB and FireWire actually make it practical for most kinds of devices.

- keep tweaking it to make it go faster; successive releases of OS X are obviously showing this is still important.

- a reasonable form factor. The towers and some past models kind of got away from this, but the notebooks and current all-in-one machines are in the same vein.

- an interface API good enough to make it worth programmers' while not to try and roll their own; if anything, I'd say that Cocoa delivers on this one far better than the toolbox and QuickDraw ever did.
 
Change for the sake of change?

Originally posted by Krizoitz
Exactly. It just seems to me that part of the die-hard "if its not OS 9 its not a Mac" people were afraid of change. Change is good, its not always smooth, but it works out. Apple needs to try new things, otherwise we aren't going to know if the way we USED to do it is better or worse.
Click to expand...

I only recently made the jump to X, but it wasn't due to a fear of change. In my case, it was mostly due to certain applications and utilities not being available for X, and I had no desire to go through an expensive upgrade process only to have to run my apps in Classic.

Saying "Change is good" is an over-simplification. I'd prefer, "Change is good, as long as you learn from the past." Many of the UI problems in X were known long before it was officially released (for instance, not having a divider in the dock between apps and docs). I got an early iBook with 10.1 for my wife, so I was able to play around in X (including 10.2) without affecting my workflow. Even if I had been able to upgrade my office system sooner, I wouldn't have considered it until Panther, which is when X finally matured to the point of usability, IMHO.

One last point: you seem to accept that Mac users are destined to be Apple's UI test lab. To a small degree, that's inevitable and even admirable, but it amazes me that certain features from 9 were deliberately left out of X under the guise of "improvement", yet have managed to find their way back in. Seems to me that the original decisions were made by some exec, despite protests from Apple's very talented engineers and designers. However it happened, it was a very unfortunate and inefficient process.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back