 sj |
||
|
||
BS: The new iMac
|
|
|
Subject: The new iMac From: GUEST,PaulM Date: 14 Jan 02 - 06:19 PM Point 1: It looks very, very cool Point 2: erm that's about it It's a real shame that Apple's market share is so small that the wonderful looking new iMac will only be a success in so far as PC manufacturers will take the best ideas and clone them. Apple have in recent years proved themselves masters of design. Shame that they can't write decent software... Paul
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: The new iMac From: Amos Date: 14 Jan 02 - 09:03 PM DECENT SOFTWARE??? OS X is terrific software; a damn sight more reliable, in my experience than any Windows version prior to 2000 and later than same. The only package I have seen that compares favorably to it for reliability is UNIX flavors 1...n, which is not a surprise. Apple has a history of terrific software innovations which worked right and were market-stunning in their originality. They invented Plug and Play and made it mean something. I won't take the time to make alist. They've also had some that never made it through beta, admittedly, but compared to Microsoft's boneyard of bloated gangrenous code they have been saintly. A
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: The new iMac From: Jon Freeman Date: 14 Jan 02 - 09:24 PM I've not really heard too many compliants over Mac software and I think it is fair to say that my mate Bill and his motely crew didn't do to well at their earlier attempts at developing ideas that came from the Mac... My worries with software would be one over compatibility as I believe Mac have been more prone to make software "outdated" with the introduction of new OS and I would imagine there is far greater support for Windows - seems to me even things like Paltalk would need an emulator to work on a Mac - not a situation I like but that's how I see it. Hardware wise, I really don't know the relative merits of PC versus Mac but my feeling would be that given the number of manufacturers making bits for PC clones and I'd have thought the competitiveness of the market, you would stand a greater chance of getting more for less money with the PC even though it becomes increasingly difficult to keep track of all processor/motherboard types/memory types/ etc. combinations. Any idea how a UNIX based system compares on the 2 hardware platforms anyone? Jon |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The new iMac From: M.Ted Date: 14 Jan 02 - 09:28 PM The obligatory PC troll, Amos--they know that Mac people will bite any time anyone disrespects the good stuff--Say what they want about the software--there is a real good reason that the music industry, the publishing and printing industries etc etc long ago standardized on the Apple formats--any when was the last time you had a virus? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The new iMac From: catspaw49 Date: 14 Jan 02 - 09:40 PM Well, you probably don't get messages like this one either. Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The new iMac From: Jon Freeman Date: 14 Jan 02 - 09:47 PM MTed, the way I had understood it and I stand to be corrected on this is that there certainly were reasons for the industries you mentioned favouring the Mac. It is also my understanding that these gaps have been eroded over time and perhaps issues of loyalty and of using familiar systems are bigger factors than differences in the current products. Any comments? I am at a disadvantage in this in that I have never had the pleasure of using a Mac in any of its forms. Jon |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The new iMac From: Alice Date: 14 Jan 02 - 10:13 PM I've owned both PC and Mac, and I love my Macs. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The new iMac From: M.Ted Date: 14 Jan 02 - 11:12 PM I really am not that familiar with PC's, but if the gaps are closed, it means that you can cut and paste text, images, MIDI and audio, and video from one program to another easily, you can create aliases on your desktop and use them to access any files, that all peripherals are easy to connect and disconnect, and, as I said, you don't worry much about e-mail viruses-- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The new iMac From: Jon Freeman Date: 14 Jan 02 - 11:36 PM MTed, Windows Cut and paste, drag and drop, etc are all there... Aliases - I think what you are reffering to would be called shortcuts in Windows. Windows has been plug and play for some time, it has USB support since very late releases of '95... Email viruses... there is no reason to worry too much about them, just to take sensible precautions like good AV software, avoid openeing suspect attachements and if you are really concerned run something like Eudora rather than the MS Outlook Express Offering. Maybe there still are specialist areas where the Mac really still is "God" but by my way of thinking, the PC is a good all rounder and perhaps the better buy for most home users and probably as the general purpose business/ office machine. And I think currently that means a Win PC. I would love to hear other opinions as I've no reason for loyalty to any solution except to say personally, OS wise, I'd like to see the open source UNIX type software winning the day. As Mark Clark made me aware, they are already serious competition in the world of networking. Jon |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The new iMac From: Amos Date: 14 Jan 02 - 11:37 PM W_2000 actually has done pretty well catching up with all those, except the last one. It handles USB (a hardware standard introduced widely by Apple, I believe) which is pretty much hot swappable. A. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The new iMac From: mooman Date: 15 Jan 02 - 04:12 AM Amongst my other responsibilities I was awarded the "honour" of being systems manager for an NT/PC network at work. (It WILL be changed to Unix/Linux at the earliest opportunity I have decided!). Which is why it is a joy to get back to my Mac at home. The new iMac is excellent and OS X is the best and most stable Mac OS yet. Viruses? Never had one on the Mac but have lost days at work dealing with virus attacks, fixing open links and renewing NT software to block spammers, changing to ADSL,, working out why two identical PCs with the same software behave completely differently, etc, etc! Pity something so good as Apple got blocked out of the market so long by MicroPower. P.S. And the Acorn Archimedes machines were even better than the Macs. I still use a fully functional and reliable 1989/1990 vintage one for desktop publishing jobs. Thats with a 40 Meg HD and 4Megs of RAM, the reason being that all the software on is is PROPERLY written in MACHINE CODE. It was also the first RISC OS machine. People had a vision then and knew what they were doing! Respectfully, mooman (a terminally bemused user of all the different systems and now only part-time scientist (which is what I am supposed to do) and folkie!) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The new iMac From: mack/misophist Date: 15 Jan 02 - 10:35 AM I didn't see any answer the the question of how Unix compares to the two major platforms. Well, here goes nothing. Unix is more stable, much more stable than either Macs or PCs. It's inheard of for an NT of Win2K machine to be on line for a solid year; common for Unix. Application crashes can occur but when they do, they're unlikely to bring down the system. The various GUIs available make them easy for a workstation user to run. On the other hand, a Unix/Linux network demands the services of a qualified System Admin. Without a qualified Admin, things can get very hairy. Also note: There may be no doubt that the Mac OS is very good, perhaps even superior, but the reason it has little to fear from viruses has nothing to do with that. Crackers and other black hats want to make as big a splash as possible. Why attack the minority operating system? They go for Microsoft, of course. The majority of viruses are designed to work on Outlook. Ditch that and half the battle is won. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The new iMac From: Jon Freeman Date: 15 Jan 02 - 10:45 AM misophhist. I think you may be referring to my question but that wasn't what I was trying to ask. My interest is in how the PC and Mac compare when running the same type of UNIX based operating system. Jon |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The new iMac From: The_one_and_only_Dai Date: 15 Jan 02 - 11:35 AM I have an iMac, at home. It was made in Newcastle. It's a why-aye-Mac. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The new iMac From: GUEST,flora Date: 15 Jan 02 - 08:55 PM Mmmmm, iMacs..... aside from all the technical stuff, as there are people here far better qualified to explain that than I am, they're just so well designed - and no, I don't just mean on the outside. It's just a far easier system to use, much simpler, yet it can still do all the same stuff....go figure. I've had PCs too, and have to use them at college, but like most who use both I'd favour a Mac every single time. And no, of course we don't feel smug that no-one can ever be bothered to write a virus for Macs....;) flora x |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The new iMac From: Amos Date: 15 Jan 02 - 09:08 PM I'd be interested to see a load and performance analysis comparing a high-end Pentium driving Linux against a comparable task set on a G4/5 running OSX. Anyone runb across any such thing? A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The new iMac From: Guy Wolff Date: 15 Jan 02 - 11:18 PM I got the I mac the first week they came out . It has never given me a problem in the years Ive had it .. It has'nt helped with my speling but I just love the thing . All the best , Guy |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The new iMac From: Peg Date: 16 Jan 02 - 10:57 AM I have an iMac and I love it but I caution you all; no matter how tempted you are, DON'T buy a refurbished one! I did last year, thinking it would save me a few hundred bucks. It had problems from the get-go (although they are supposed to be all checked out and repaired when you get them). Finally the hard drive died and the video analog power supply (which was faulty from the get go and probably crahsed the hard drive) had to be replaced. It had to go to the repair shop and the warranty did cover it but it took 3 weeks for me to get it back! It is now fine, but never again will I do that! A new one costs more but the warranty covers more and you can get a whole new machine if it has problems, often. I bought it from a company in Vermont which had an excellent reputation...I will probably use them again (they were helpful) but their policy on refurbished machines meant I had to get the faulty machine repaired, when I simply wanted a replacement... Oh, and since everyone asks: Sage Green. :)
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: The new iMac From: The_one_and_only_Dai Date: 16 Jan 02 - 11:55 AM OH. Strawberry. With a grape keyboard (don't ask) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The new iMac From: wysiwyg Date: 16 Jan 02 - 12:38 PM Peg, thanks for the refurb-report. Another indication I did the right thing to NOT try to bring back the Mac smoked in our fire. Sure enough it was wonky when I brought it back up-- so I passed it along for parts to a local Mac tech. ~S~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The new iMac From: M.Ted Date: 16 Jan 02 - 02:49 PM A lot of times, when a new generation is introduced(which seems like every other month) the new units that they replace are drastically reduced, and you do better, pricewise, than when you buy a used, recent unit(especially when you factor HD capacity in)-- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The new iMac From: Gervase Date: 17 Jan 02 - 07:58 AM Under my desk as I write is a hairy-arsed Wintel box running Windows 2000 and a Mac G4. Guess what this is being written on? PCs are fine if you are the sort of person who actually likes endlessly configuring systems, playing around with registries and generally cursing and swearing at lost files, viruses and blue screens - but Macs are for the rest of us. They just work. I know that, at some stage, I've got to work out this Windows malarkey, but life's just too damned short. I'd rather be writing than agonising over the choice of pencil, for heaven's sake! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The new iMac From: Jon Freeman Date: 17 Jan 02 - 08:13 AM Gervase, you are reffering to a PC running Windows. I'll try again... A computer - PC or Mac is an item of hardware. The software that effectively gives the machine its "personality" and controls how things work is called the Operating System. Operating Systems include Windows which runs on a PC, OS X which runs on a Mac and Linux which runs on a variety of platforms including the PC and the Mac. We have had several discussions over the Win/Mac software as well as acknowledgement regarding the stability of Linux. If we were to forget about the choice of operating system, how does the Mac HARDWARE compare to the PC hardware? Jon |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The new iMac From: Bat Goddess Date: 17 Jan 02 - 08:41 AM The first box I owned was a c. 1985 IBM-XT -- shoulda bought a Mac. Instead, I didn't start using Macs until 1990, transitioning from proprietary computerized typesetters to a Mac SE30. Now I've got (at home) a Performa 550, a IIci and a G4 (which I do all my work on) and a G3 and G4 at work. I'm a graphic designer. PCs weren't even capable of doing any of the stuff I do on a Mac until Bill Gates stole the "look and feel" for Windows. Same thing with music software. Of course Windows still sits on top of DOS. Of course Bill incorporated all the ideas, but made sure he implemented an interface that in a lot of cases works exactly opposite of the way you'd do it on a Mac -- but there's a great book called "Crossing Platforms" by Adam Engst and David Pogue that translates "how to" between platforms. It's frustrating (at least temporarily) to know how to do something but have to switch to a tool that does it completely differently. Only virus we've ever had was the AutoStart worm a few years back -- started in Hong Kong and went through every graphics shop in the world over the next few months. Very simple to prevent once it was identified. My computer was infected a couple days after the anti-virus defs were written. Even my tech didn't recognize the worm until a couple days after he brought the computer back saying there was nothing wrong with it other than it wouldn't work. ;-) Jon, I was trying to find the article that compared the processing speed, etc. of the recent G4s to Wintel boxes, but I can't lay my mouse on it right yet. But check out this article while you're waiting: http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2002/01/09/notes010902.DTL Linn |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The new iMac From: Amos Date: 17 Jan 02 - 01:50 PM Jon: You're not going to get a Mac machine running Windows! And really, from a user perspective it is a don't-care propostion - they want net performance, and they get mor of it--in their own estimation -- from Macs, apparently. In general the instruction set on the Macs is faster. I have no idea how much of Wintel's rep for trouble is atrributable to basic instructions set and registers vice the OS but I assume the bulk of it is OS related. Actually, I have been told that the W2K emulation offered by VirtualPC runs faster and more reliably than W2K on a Pentium, but that's only one report. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The new iMac From: Mark Clark Date: 17 Jan 02 - 03:15 PM A very interesting discussion here. Thanks. Actually, Mac OS X is practically UNIX. Its direct antecedent is an operating system called NeXTSTEP, not OS 9. NeXTSTEP was basically BSD (Berkley Systems Distribution) UNIX built over a Mach kernel. NeXTSTEP used many of the GNU programs including the compiler, GCC. NeXTSTEP was entirely object-oriented and the primary source language was Objective C. The NeXT engineers added Objective C to the GNU C compiler (GCC) and dutifully put it all back into the public domain. When I was using a NeXT workstation, it was running a Motorola 68040 at 33MHz, the clock speed of an Intel 386 c. 1987, but—because of the OS—it produced a performance that my 600MHz Pentium with Win98 and five times the memory is only beginning to match. I haven't used OS X yet but I'm looking forward to the experience. I think OS X no longer incorporates Display PostScript, a feature that really enhanced the capabilities and performance of NeXTSTEP, but I'm sure there is some kind of an OO layer in there. The G4 processor used by the iMac is technically capable of all the performance one would expect from Intel processors running at much faster speeds. For arcane technical reasons, processor speed alone is not necessarily a good indicator of performance. I have no data to support my belief but I would expect a UNIX-like OS on an iMac to run circles around any comparable WinTel machine and I see no reason not to expect the stability of OS X to match that of UNIX once it has gained some maturity. A key strategy of Microsoft and a very successful one at that, has been to cater to developers and other propeller-heads. Microsoft realized that, in most cases, it's the tech weenies that drive the purchasing decisions. Macs have tended to be less interesting to technical types because there isn't much for them to do. If there isn't a lot of arcane configuration knowledge to learn and play with, there's nothing left for it but doing productive work. OS X should have a much better chance of attracting the hearts of the technically oriented because, under the covers, it's nearly UNIX. I don't know if I've answered any of the questions but I've typed a lot of stuff a poked around at the issues some. - Mark |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The new iMac From: Gervase Date: 18 Jan 02 - 04:33 AM Jon, The hardware, in the limited comparisons I can do (mainly the rendering of PhotoShop files, which I can do on both PC and Mac) is better on the Mac. I don't know whether its the RISC chip, or simply that the innards are capable of talking to their component parts more quickly, but a 500MHz Mac seems to work faster than an 800MHz PC. And the basic build is brilliant - accessibility is no problem - I installed another hard drive in the Mac the other day and it took literally two minutes from opening the case to boot-up. Both machines have their uses, strengths and weaknesses, of course, but out of choice I prefer the Mac. Now I'm trying to get my head round Linux on both platforms - that should give an objective measure of the relative speeds. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The new iMac From: GUEST,JTT Date: 18 Jan 02 - 06:38 AM I use a Mac, I use a PC But with the PC, at the moment I'm trying to find out whether running FDISK /mbr to get rid of the virus that seems to have infected the *motherboard* will stop me being able to access the CD-ROM. And in general I've found Mac dealers nicer to trade with - for instance I bought Windows 2000 Pro a few months ago from an online firm, Direct Deals; I didn't open the package for four months (didn't have all the parts bought... slight money delays...) The CD turned out to be a dud, and DD refuse to replace it, citing their 30-day warranty, which I would have thought covered something that *went* wrong within 30 days, rather than something that didn't work in the first place. I've never had experiences like that with a Mac dealer. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The new iMac From: Jon Freeman Date: 18 Jan 02 - 10:30 PM Interesting comments and it does sound to me, even though it is mostly "feeling based" that the mac hardware is likely to be superior. Any thoughts on a pound for pound (or dollar for dollar) evaluation? Also interesting to see Mooman note the use of assembly language in the what I believe were highly innovative Acorn machines and Mark Clark mentioning object orientated programming when reffering to writing an OS... Question: what is the current thinking - the way I (prehaps wrongly) understood it was that OOP while producing less effiecient code than may be possible with straight assembler allows much more complex ideas to be modelled and developed. Jon |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The new iMac From: Amos Date: 18 Jan 02 - 11:00 PM Jon: It is certain that Object Oriented programming techniques allow complex logic patterns to be encoded in ways that would be mind-numbing if not impossible in assembler; but that's because a C++ command can easily be the equivalent of dozens of assembler commands used as a subroutine. Assembler is very lean and very low-level language. But bear in mind that C++ gets compiled into object executables, and cannot run until it is compiled...so the expanded apparent complexity may be greatly condensed. If you read a C++ files, and have a glossary, you can follow the logic thread. Reading an assembly-code file is like trying to decipher ancient hieroglyphics without a Rosetta stone, to the uninitiated. I am not a veteran in either language, but I have rassled with them both... A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The new iMac From: Jon Freeman Date: 18 Jan 02 - 11:49 PM Amos, you are one up on me in using assembler to any degree - it is completely beyond me. I have dabbled with OOP although mostly with Turbo Pascal and mostly as a self interest thing to learn how concepts like inheritance and virtual methods work - have had a play with C++ too. Arguably as I (very) occasionally use old versions of Delphi and C++ builder, I do still touch the world of OOP but I find it hard to consider that tagging a few lines of code onto something like an event procedure which is all I ever seem to do is OOP even if the package I'm using is built that way. Jon (drifting even further off topic) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The new iMac From: Amos Date: 19 Jan 02 - 12:47 AM Well, with that new I Mac you can OOP in style!! There are degrees and kinds of OOP -- in the early days anyone who used classes and inheritance was "doing OOP". Now it can all be done through higher-level logic abstractions in models of information, attributes, states and triggers, using GUI interfaces to draw the logic out and then automatically generate whole C++ product. It's a hoot. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The new iMac From: Shantymanuk Date: 19 Jan 02 - 10:19 AM Its' all a matter of "horses for courses" as far as I'm concerned. I use a G3-400 iMac with and external audio/MIDI USB desk for home recording, and I wouldn't use anything else. Why? No fans, and software that is glitch-free (ie no unwanted clicks or dropouts). I don't let it anywhere near the Internet though. I use a pc for that and for everything else because they're cheaper, quicker, easier to upgrade. You pay your money and you takes your choice. Alan |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The new iMac From: Mark Clark Date: 19 Jan 02 - 12:29 PM Wow, great insights here. I'm really enjoying everyone's comments. When it comes to selecting a hardware platform I personally don't think the process has changed much over the 35 years I've been doing it. There are three basic questions to answer:
In many cases, answering these three questions will pretty well select your hardware platform. If they still leave some choices for you, start looking at price/performance issues, support, reliability, reputation, etc. Every computer system has aspects we wish were better. The trick is to make your selection based on a needs analysis, not advertising or popularity. Buying a computer first and then working to see what you can get it to do is okay for hobbyists or people who just want to start learning about computers but if you have a particular set of problems to solve, you need to perform the analysis. Computers are deceptively inexpensive so it seems as though the choice isn't such a big deal. The real cost, though, is the years of your own time you put into it's use. You can always buy a different type of computer but you can't get those years back if you chose poorly the first time. - Mark |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The new iMac From: Amos Date: 19 Jan 02 - 12:42 PM The "why do I need a computer" approach is the conventional wisdom used by consultants and PC salesmen for decades and it certainly has merit. But I would suggest that perhaps it is the wrong question. I remember many instances where a noncomputer user would stumble around trying to answer it and come up with "recipes, checkbook, letters and my novel" as about all they could think of. I think in addition to a needs analysis, which by necessity is based on a look back at what the noncomputeruser has done so far with their time, there should also be an opportunities analysis. It is really difficult, for example, to explain the opportunities for discovery and friendship in a "place" like the 'Cat to someone whose interaction with other people has been limited to face-time, phone calls or letters. The differences in scope and quality of experience are dramatic and unimaginable to the uninitiated. It is also true that a computer system is an amazing enabler and unleashes imaginative and creaive possibilities that the person has never tapped into because of his sheltered lack of exposure. This is certainly true of Macs, because of their friendlier interactions -- people just gasp with excitement when the possibilities start to become apparent. If they have a creative streak, it brings it out. And there's no telling where that can go. And none of this can come up in a needs analysis because the possibilities are not known yet! A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The new iMac From: Mark Clark Date: 19 Jan 02 - 03:31 PM Amos, I completely agree. It was my intention and my hope that your view was included in my explanation above. Looking back, I was probably a little terse. About twenty years ago, I was teaching a class in PC use to a group of executives. One of the executives had purchased his own IBM PC for home use and the others were giving him a good natured hard time about it—they ran about $5,000 at the time— because they didn't see any financial justification for having one at home. His response was that they spent their recreational money on golf carts and bass boats and he spent his on a computer. To him, it was recreation. Recreation and learning (or just messing about) are excellent reasons to buy a computer. Still, I think the three steps I listed apply. The first microcomputer I bought was purchased entirely for learning and messing about. I wanted to learn WordStar, Supercalc and dBASE II since they were far and away the most popular programs in their categories at the time. (MS Word and Windows weren't even an idea yet.) I did the research and bought an Osborne 1, the first portable (lugable, actually) computer. I didn't need a portable computer but it was all bundled together at a total price equal to the retail price of the software alone. It was as though I bought some software and they threw in a free computer. Had I bought the same software and a similarly configured IBM PC—just hitting the market at the time—I'd have spent three times as much money. My daughter the sound engineer wouldn't use anything but an iMac. All the best software in the arts runs on Macintosh and her peers all use iMacs. I buy Wintel machines at home because I work with corporations that use them and I need to be compatible. If I were hosting applications for others on a commercial basis, I'd run Linux or FreeBSD with Apache and the hardware might not be Intel-based. If I were a systems administrator for a large Sun installation, I'd probably have at least one system running Solaris at home since Solaris on Intel is also free. The opportunities for discovery on the Internet, while huge, really just represent another application. If the primary reason for buying a computer is the Internet it still would be beneficial to work through the three questions. Effective Internet use means adequate bandwidth, multimedia and graphics applications, enough speed and capacity to run several applications at the same time and to provide good Java performance. One might want to know to what extent a particular platform supports the most common or most desired standards, etc. Does that mean a complete tenderfoot should talk to some knowledgeable person before spending his money?... yup. Is the guy at the store going to be much help?... nope. - Mark |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The new iMac From: Amos Date: 19 Jan 02 - 03:39 PM Dang, a fellow Osborne user!!! I loved mine!! I learned Supercalc., WordStar, and learned to write BASIC programs (interpreted). I learned the Hayes modem command set!! I learned "a: pip b:" and other really arcane C/PM OS commands!! I loved it!!! When I look at what my G4 can do today compared that little bugger I feel like I am flying a Learjet when I used to ride a Vespa. But that darn thing did an awful lot, and it did it all in something like 528K of memory!! Or was the floppy disk size? A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The new iMac From: Mark Clark Date: 19 Jan 02 - 05:47 PM Small world, Amos. Yeah, the Osborne came with the full 64K RAM. IBM had based their strategy on Apples; entry level machines had 16K with expensive upgrades available in 4K increments. With IBM and Apple, even a single floppy disk drive (128K) was an expensive add-on. There were no Winchester drives for micros at the time. I'm sure envious of your G4 iMac. - Mark |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The new iMac From: Jon Freeman Date: 19 Jan 02 - 09:50 PM Never met an Osborne but I have met versions of Wordstar (which I grew to love), Supercalc and DBase... I also have memories of CP/M... including using pip to copy - what was pip - peripheral interchange program? Jon
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: The new iMac From: Amos Date: 19 Jan 02 - 10:45 PM Yep. Used to swap diskfuls of data, the equivalent of a DOS copy command. The Osborne was about the size of a Singer sewing machine, had a little screen and two little diskdrives, and the keyboard closed over the screen to make it all luggable if you were built like a Ukrainian housewife. :>) You could hook a modem up to it and call bulletin boards, the closest think there was to internet work, back then. And, just as with today's computers, it was incredibly easy to lose week after week playing with the goddamn thing. A
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: The new iMac From: Jon Freeman Date: 19 Jan 02 - 11:24 PM Just reading again - full 64K of RAM! My first computer was a Vic 20 which used to proudly report something like "3583 Bytes Free"! Jon |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The new iMac From: Mark Clark Date: 20 Jan 02 - 02:39 AM It's been years since mine was even plugged in. Still, it was working fine the last time I used it. I'll have to get it back out one of these days just to see if I can remember how to use it. I wound up using mine for lots of things. I'd try out new languages as they came along. I bought a commercial C compiler (Aztec) for it and wrote a lot of stuff including a graphical font editor and a primative type setting program using fonts I created. - Mark |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The new iMac From: Jon Freeman Date: 20 Jan 02 - 07:51 PM Just one last one on the sort of nostalgia bit from me but perhaps with other thoughts too. I tried programming in BASIC on the Vic20 and later on the Commodore 64 but never really got anywhere - the thing was so slow (for BASIC - assembler would have been different) and I only ever produced "spaghetti" code. When I bought my first PC (Amstrad PC1512 - 8088 processor - 512K ram someone put me on to Turbo Pascal. It compiled .exe files which ran quickly but more importantly, it enforced some degree of learning from me - I couldn't introduce a variable at random - in fact, in many ways, it was very strict. It gave me the ability to use functions, break things into logical blocks as well as opening new areas to me such as pointers (and believe me I've crashed a PC many times from getting those wrong) and the TP extension into OOP. I still wonder about BASIC as in Beginners All Purpose Instruction Code as being a teaching/begginers language and feel that Pascal was far better for learning with. Further still when we look further down the line, VB, which to me seemed to have "stolen" many ideas from Pascal (or arguably C or others) was the weaker language - guess it was the clout of MS that made it so popular? Jon |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The new iMac From: Alice Date: 20 Jan 02 - 08:24 PM PC's were sold at a cheaper price than Macs, and under IBM's connection with Microsoft, the market filled with them. They are so ubiquitous because they were cheaper, not better, than Macs. Today I was reading the Time article on the new iMac (the issue with the cover photo of the iMac) and found it online here:Click Here - Apple's New Core, time.com |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The new iMac From: Alice Date: 20 Jan 02 - 08:26 PM Sorry, I guess that link doesn't work. Just go to www.time.com and search on "iMac". Alice |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The new iMac From: Mark Clark Date: 21 Jan 02 - 10:38 AM For the terminally curious, here is an eight minute Quicktime video on the “megahertz myth” featuring Steve Jobs and Apple Senior VP of Hardware Jon Rubinstein explaining why an 800MHz Power Mac G4 creams the 1.7GHz Pentium 4 by a blistering 83%. - Mark |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The new iMac From: Chip2447 Date: 22 Jan 02 - 02:14 AM TIMEX-SINCLAIR 2000... Nuff said....HAHAHAHA... Chip2447 (who is still stuck on LOGO as the computer language of choice) |