Apple hired 11 PARC engineers to make the Lisa :p

here you go, prototype screenshots http://www.pegasus3d.com/apple_screens.html
Posted on 2004-01-25 13:23:49 by Hiroshimator
So if Apple hired those PARC engineers, they weren't working on the Xerox system then, were they? :)

The thing is that Xerox was never too interested in what the Palo Alto division was doing, so the technology went to others instead.
Which is why others managed to make a successful, finished product, and Xerox ended up with nothing in the end.
And the Mac is that successful product. Which we should celebrate.
Without a successful example, there would not have been followers. Why would Microsoft have wanted to follow a failure of Xerox?
So just forget about your silly Xerox stuff, and pay respect to Apple, like you should.

On a side-note: http://www.ipo.tue.nl/homepages/mrauterb/presentations/HCI-history/sld001.htm
Nice presentation that I found, with some of the key-systems in the evolution of computing.
Posted on 2004-01-25 13:29:44 by Henk-Jan
(the following is all my personal opinion of course :) )

I think that if you wish to pay respect to 'founders' of something then you better actually pay respect to the correct parties.

I've heard people say lots of things about Apple as a corporation, what they 'invented' and usually it's just plain false.

It's cool people in that era were already juggling around with the early GUIs and that should be respected but it was certainly not Apple's doing. (they never even succeeded in commoditizing it)

I think the award for commoditizing it and introducing it to people goes to windows 3.x
Posted on 2004-01-25 13:49:33 by Hiroshimator
I think that if you wish to pay respect to 'founders' of something then you better actually pay respect to the correct parties.


That was the whole point of me even reacting on this thread here.

I think the award for commoditizing it and introducing it to people goes to windows 3.x


That depends very much on how you define "commoditizing"...
Windows 3.x did in 1992ish what Apple and others had been doing for nearly a decade: offering easy-to-use, affordable GUIs.
My generation never touched PCs until about that time, we used home computers, and they had graphics, mice and working GUIs long before Windows actually became usable... Even on PC, there were alternatives to Windows.
I personally had my first GUI on the C64, with GEOS. This was in the mid-80s. Then I had an Amiga, which again had a GUI, and it even had true multitasking (something the Lisa had aswell, but the Mac didn't, and obviously Windows didn't either).
And some of my friends had Atari ST's instead, with the GEM/TOS system, another GUI.

So from my point-of-view, Windows was not exactly the first to introduce it to the people. In fact, Windows was one of the last to actually reach us (we didn't even HAVE PCs until the 90s, we used homecomputers, as I said).

So the way I see it, the GUI was already quite well-established by the time Windows actually became usable. In fact, I had been searching for an alternative to GEOS on my first PC, but I could not find it... The closest was Windows 1.3, but it wasn't much.

Ofcourse we all know that eventually people became rich enough to afford PCs instead of home-computers (an average home computer used to cost about 250-500e, while PCs started at 1000e or more, while the home computers were generally more powerful aswell), which eventually made the home-computer disappear altogether, and because of that, Windows eventually became the most popular OS/GUI.
But it is by no means the first, it plays more of "Model T" role than anything else, while Apple is more of the first usable car.
Ofcourse Windows deserves respect for its role aswell, but you also have to realize that without Apple, Windows might not have existed at all, or at least looked a lot different.
Posted on 2004-01-25 14:05:59 by Henk-Jan
Even today Apple Computers are not a commodity. While their merits/quality is arguable compared to their competitors, their price is not, barring them from being a commodity (how many people do you know that own an Apple Computer?).

It's sort of a shame but it's exactly what Steve Jobs has always wanted.
Posted on 2004-01-25 14:55:46 by Hiroshimator
Compared to the marketshare of Windows/PCs, nobody is anywhere near a commodity...
Mind you, there are still about 3-4% of Mac users among all computer users, which makes them the second largest.
Which is not bad for a company that has to do everything on its own, both software and hardware.

As for the price, if you make a fair comparison against PCs (A-brands, not cheap Aldi stuff, with the same kind of quality and features), you will see that Macs are not expensive at all. In fact, the Virginiatech supercomputer is the world's 3rd fastest supercomputer, and it's built from G5s, which makes it by far the cheapest in the top 10 of supercomputers, easily beating x86-based systems. So as for price/performance, Apple is probably doing quite well.

If people were less like you, and more objective about technology, they might actually sell more Macs.
Posted on 2004-01-25 15:48:57 by Henk-Jan
price-wise you can get a very performant system a lot (easily $500 - $700 for an end-result that's a lot faster) cheaper on the x86 platform because they can use of the shelf components.

For many people it matters and it also eliminates many of the 'brand' significance. It's what makes a $400 walmart lindows PC a commodity and a $1799 MAC a luxury item.
Posted on 2004-01-25 16:14:51 by Hiroshimator
What's your point though? If it wasn't for the Apple I and II, the IBM PC might never have existed, and if it wasn't for the Lisa/Mac, Windows might never have existed.
Both products are a direct reaction on a (rather revolutionary) product of Apple.

Besides, you can get Macs a lot cheaper than $1799. Especially the eMac series has quite friendly prices. You won't make $400, but you can probably stay under $1000. And ofcourse you DO get proper stuff, like a decent ATi videocard, not the onboard rubbish that Intel likes to stick in their chipsets for example.
So it depends on what you are looking for in a PC. For me the display card is very important to the performance of a system (CPU is not important at all). Therefore I cannot accept cheap PCs with onboard stuff, which drives the price up a lot immediately.

Just face it, Macs are not that expensive for what they have to offer. And most people can actually afford them, like me for example, I've never bought an ultra-cheap PC in my life anyway. I see many people around me buying Sony, Dell or other brand PCs, with decent specs, and ofcourse at prices more like the $1799 you mention. It all depends on what you call a 'commodity' I suppose. I think virtually everyone could afford an eMac anyway.

I think you just have some emotional issue with Macs. As I said before, probably jealousy or ignorance.
Posted on 2004-01-25 17:17:52 by Henk-Jan
The point is that given the amount of software you can run on an x86 box and the relative cheapness of the combination, they have turned into a commodity whereas the Apple platform still is expensive (for an arguable quality) and a bit more restricted in its usage. To some people that matters. :)

I look at Apple computers as expensive computers with a high profit margin for the maker whereas most x86 based computers gets sold at a much lower profit margin, leaving me, the buyer, with either less in costs or more for my money. Return On Investment. The joys of competition. ;)

If their computers actually were top of the line (like they used to be) that price would be justified (to me), but they're not. They use the same cheap of the shelf components as the x86 counterparts do with the exception of the motherboard and the CPU. So all things considered the Apple tax weighs pretty heavy these days.

If you like what you get with an Apple and you're willing to pay for it fine (to each his/her own) :), but they're not exactly cheap for what you get (compared to their competition).
Posted on 2004-01-25 17:35:54 by Hiroshimator
PCs are also restricted. Macs have superior colour correction, which makes PCs not very wanted for professional photography or printing. Macs are also better (more robust timing for example) at MIDI sequencing/sound processing, so you rarely find PCs in professional sound studios. Sometimes a Mac is your only choice.
You can run Windows on a Mac though, and many programs have native Mac versions (yes even MS Office), so most PC tasks can easily be done on Macs aswell. It's just that people like yourself don't realize it.

Also, I think you are wrong about the profit margin. For starters, Mac OS is very cheap, and that for a company that is not even focusing on software development.
Secondly, Apple has to design the entire system in-house, and get it into production. Most PC stuff uses age-old designs and all-standard 3rd-party components (of a lower grade than Apple, to boot). So, PCs might be cheaper, but that is not all related to profit margins. There is a lot more to it.

As for off-the-shelf components... Partly true... The chipset itself is ofcourse custom-made. The processors and chipsets still run at a higher FSB than any PC... And the graphics cards start at a much higher level than the onboard junk that Intel or VIA dare to include. The simplest is a Radeon 9200 I believe, which is quite a nice chip already, both featurewise and speedwise. It will run circles around Intel's rubbish, which does not have even have hardware T&L, let alone shaders.
So comparing the cheapest Apple against the cheapest PC is not fair. You have to compare a PC which is comparable in both speed and features. And then Apple is NOT expensive. So it IS cheap for what you get. Perhaps you just think that Apple gives too much, that's another story. Get your facts straight atleast.
Posted on 2004-01-25 17:59:06 by Henk-Jan
You're both wrong!!! DynatOS came first. Despite the fact that I have not yet built a time machine to go back and change things doesn't mean it won't happen. Don't let the paradox of history not showing this yet fool you :tongue:
Posted on 2004-01-25 23:40:25 by SpooK
Well, yes I know all that. Please don't be presumptuous.


It's a very crooked way to compare but it's about the only thing you can do, a price comparison:
(I tried to make them similar)

? 1.6GHz PowerPC G5
? 256MB DDR333 SDRAM (PC2700) - 2x128
? 80GB Serial ATA - 7200rpm
? NVIDIA GeForce FX 5200 Ultra
? 56k V.92 internal modem
? SuperDrive (DVD-R/CD-RW)
? Apple Keyboard & Apple Mouse - U.S. English
? Mac OS X - U.S. English

Subtotal

? 1.6GHz PowerPC G5
? 256MB DDR333 SDRAM (PC2700) - 2x128
? 80GB Serial ATA - 7200rpm
? NVIDIA GeForce FX 5200 Ultra
? 56k V.92 internal modem
? SuperDrive (DVD-R/CD-RW)
? Apple Keyboard & Apple Mouse - U.S. English
? Mac OS X - U.S. English

Subtotal $1,799.00


this is the entry level powermac (which are the only decent ones since the other still use motorola G4)
It has no monitor, nothing of an 'office software' of any form, no networking


Dell Dimension 8300 Series:
Pentium? 4 Processor with HT Technology 2.8GHz w/800MHz FSB
Microsoft? Windows? XP Home Edition
256MB Dual Channel DDR SDRAM at 400MHz
120GB Serial ATA Hard Drive (7200RPM)
Single Drive: 8x DVD+RW Drive
Dell? Wireless Keyboard and Optical Mouse
Productivity Pack including WordPerfect? and Money?
Dell Security Center by McAfee w/ VirusScan, Firewall and Privacy, 90-day
E151FPb Flat Panel Display
128MB DDR GeForce FX 5200 Graphics Card with TV-Out and DVI
Integrated 5.1 Channel Audio
Dell 5650 5.1 Surround Sound Speaker System with Subwoofer
Modem: 56K PCI Data/Fax Modem
Network Interface: Integrated Intel? PRO 10/100 Ethernet
1 Year Limited Warranty plus 1 Year At-Home Service
Subtotal $1,449.00
,799.00


this is the entry level powermac (which are the only decent ones since the other still use motorola G4)
It has no monitor, nothing of an 'office software' of any form, no networking


Dell Dimension 8300 Series:
Pentium? 4 Processor with HT Technology 2.8GHz w/800MHz FSB
Microsoft? Windows? XP Home Edition
256MB Dual Channel DDR SDRAM at 400MHz
120GB Serial ATA Hard Drive (7200RPM)
Single Drive: 8x DVD+RW Drive
Dell? Wireless Keyboard and Optical Mouse
Productivity Pack including WordPerfect? and Money?
Dell Security Center by McAfee w/ VirusScan, Firewall and Privacy, 90-day
E151FPb Flat Panel Display
128MB DDR GeForce FX 5200 Graphics Card with TV-Out and DVI
Integrated 5.1 Channel Audio
Dell 5650 5.1 Surround Sound Speaker System with Subwoofer
Modem: 56K PCI Data/Fax Modem
Network Interface: Integrated Intel? PRO 10/100 Ethernet
1 Year Limited Warranty plus 1 Year At-Home Service
Subtotal

? 1.6GHz PowerPC G5
? 256MB DDR333 SDRAM (PC2700) - 2x128
? 80GB Serial ATA - 7200rpm
? NVIDIA GeForce FX 5200 Ultra
? 56k V.92 internal modem
? SuperDrive (DVD-R/CD-RW)
? Apple Keyboard & Apple Mouse - U.S. English
? Mac OS X - U.S. English

Subtotal $1,799.00


this is the entry level powermac (which are the only decent ones since the other still use motorola G4)
It has no monitor, nothing of an 'office software' of any form, no networking


Dell Dimension 8300 Series:
Pentium? 4 Processor with HT Technology 2.8GHz w/800MHz FSB
Microsoft? Windows? XP Home Edition
256MB Dual Channel DDR SDRAM at 400MHz
120GB Serial ATA Hard Drive (7200RPM)
Single Drive: 8x DVD+RW Drive
Dell? Wireless Keyboard and Optical Mouse
Productivity Pack including WordPerfect? and Money?
Dell Security Center by McAfee w/ VirusScan, Firewall and Privacy, 90-day
E151FPb Flat Panel Display
128MB DDR GeForce FX 5200 Graphics Card with TV-Out and DVI
Integrated 5.1 Channel Audio
Dell 5650 5.1 Surround Sound Speaker System with Subwoofer
Modem: 56K PCI Data/Fax Modem
Network Interface: Integrated Intel? PRO 10/100 Ethernet
1 Year Limited Warranty plus 1 Year At-Home Service
Subtotal $1,449.00
,449.00


That is with an office packet, faster memory, with 5.1 sound + speakers, with 15 inch lcd monitor, with more diskspace and a videocard that has double the RAM

and you can usually make it even cheaper if you build it yourself as opposed to buying at an OEM like Dell.

As for Apple OS prices vs MS: so far Apple has charged 149$/year for 'new versions' of MAC OS X , don't see MS doing that for its service packs :P


So yes, Apple offerings are more expensive in my opinion :notsure:

It's good they finally got rid of motorola though, so maybe they'll get more and more competitive in the future but right now they're still on the high grounds price-wise
Posted on 2004-01-26 02:37:32 by Hiroshimator
this is the entry level powermac (which are the only decent ones since the other still use motorola G4)


What kind of nonsense is that anyway? The G4 is still a fine CPU, and it is generally even faster clk-for-clk than the G5. Besides, the G5 is a fullblown 64 bit CPU, comparing it to a 32 bit PC is not entirely what I call "the same features". All in all I don't think the price difference is all that shocking in your example... Does the Dell have Firewire btw? Does it have gigabit ethernet? Can it fit 8 gb of memory? Stuff like that? (the Apple feature list is a tad lacking).

No, I cannot accept these two systems as being equivalent, the Apple clearly offers a bit more.

As for Apple OS prices vs MS: so far Apple has charged 149$/year for 'new versions' of MAC OS X , don't see MS doing that for its service packs :P


Those are indeed new versions, and not service packs. Apple uses a version system like this: 10.x.y.
New x means a new version of the OS, for which you can buy an upgrade cheaply (and get it free if you bought the previous version a few months earlier). Comparable to NT4->Win2k->XP.
New y is like servicepacks, these are freely downloadable for all MacOS users.

So at least get your facts straight.
Posted on 2004-01-26 05:47:58 by Henk-Jan



What kind of nonsense is that anyway? The G4 is still a fine CPU, and it is generally even faster clk-for-clk than the G5. Besides, the G5 is a fullblown 64 bit CPU, comparing it to a 32 bit PC is not entirely what I call "the same features". All in all I don't think the price difference is all that shocking in your example... Does the Dell have Firewire btw? Does it have gigabit ethernet? Can it fit 8 gb of memory? Stuff like that? (the Apple feature list is a tad lacking).

No, I cannot accept these two systems as being equivalent, the Apple clearly offers a bit more.



the G4 is fine but you'd have to compare it to a P3. Yes, the Dell could come with gigabit ethernet, firewire and about anything else you could think off. It'll up the price but that's the same for the apple. 64bit CPU with a 32bit OS.... and if you wish, yes you can have a 64 bit CPU on the x86 platform, you know that just as well as I do. Price difference not shocking, well I'm not squeemish but it certainly is a difference considering that the PC price is for an actually usable networked 'multi-media' ( :grin: )machine, the MAC would be a headless box....

The Apple feature list is not lacking it's exactly what you get for that price.



Those are indeed new versions, and not service packs. Apple uses a version system like this: 10.x.y.
New x means a new version of the OS, for which you can buy an upgrade cheaply (and get it free if you bought the previous version a few months earlier). Comparable to NT4->Win2k->XP.
New y is like servicepacks, these are freely downloadable for all MacOS users.

So at least get your facts straight.


What's in a name? At least MS has the decency to call them service packs/bugfixes and gives them away. No (IMO) OS X --> to .3 is not comparable to NT --> XP
2K -> XP comes close but even there MS adds quite a lot more (with regards to COM+ and certain subsystems). The facts are that each year Apple comes out with a 'new' OS (I think that deserves a :rolleyes: ) and that that costs $$. (you were saying something about it being cheaper, no?)

edit: added IMO, to make that perfectly clear :P


addendum: I'm NOT saying MACs suck (hey, they finally got a great CPU, go IBM!), just that they're a bit pricey for what you get and that many people are probably better served with a cheaper x86 solution.
Posted on 2004-01-26 05:56:57 by Hiroshimator
the G4 is fine but you'd have to compare it to a P3.


I don't see why.

Yes, the Dell could come with gigabit ethernet, firewire and about anything else you could think off. It'll up the price but that's the same for the apple.


No, firewire and gigabit ethernet are standard.

The Apple feature list is not lacking it's exactly what you get for that price.


I was trying to point out that it was missing things like the gigabit ethernet and firewire that DO come standard. So yes it was lacking, you get more than what you listed.

and if you wish, yes you can have a 64 bit CPU on the x86 platform, you know that just as well as I do.


Not from Dell anyway.

What's in a name? At least MS has the decency to call them service packs/bugfixes and gives them away.


As I already said, Apple also gives service packs/bugfixes away.

The facts are that each year Apple comes out with a 'new' OS (I think that deserves a ) and that that costs $$. (you were saying something about it being cheaper, no?)


So Apple has a shorter refresh cycle than Microsoft (although MS only had 2 years between 2k and XP). But Apple's upfrades are also cheaper than the MS ones. Besides, you don't HAVE to upgrade, you can always stick to the old OS, or even skip a year or two, and then upgrade at once, for the same price.
You don't upgrade your CPU either, everytime Intel or AMD adds a few hundred MHz to their top model, do you?
In fact, you can generally take longer between upgrades on Mac than on PC, partly because of how Mac software is written, and how Macs always adopt new features earlier.

(hey, they finally got a great CPU, go IBM!)


They generally had great CPUs. The 68000 was far superior to the 8088 at the time, the first PowerPC was far superior to the Pentium, and the G4 was far superior to the PIII. They just got into trouble because of the big Intel vs AMD war, while Motorola was losing interest.
The Motorola PowerPCs were generally better than their IBM sisters though. And Motorola made the first 64 bit PowerPC years ago.

just that they're a bit pricey for what you get


If you make unfair comparisons like you do, then yes. It's hard, if not impossible, to make a fair comparison, because the systems are so different, but you do get reasonble value for money with Apple.

and that many people are probably better served with a cheaper x86 solution.


That's another story. Most people probably are. Then again, most people would probably be fine with a P200 and Win98.
But that doesn't mean that Apple doesn't have a right to exist, or that you cannot justify anyone buying an Apple. Certainly someone like you cannot make the judgement, because you apparently know very little about them, other than some specs on a website. And as we all know, specs only tell half the story.
Most importantly, it doesn't mean that PCs and Windows are what made computers to what they are today, that is still mostly Apple. If Pepsi cola sells more than Coca Cola, that still doesn't mean that Pepsi cola invented cola. It's still Coca Cola, nothing will change that. Pepsi will always just be a clone, no matter how well they will sell.
Posted on 2004-01-26 06:35:02 by Henk-Jan
so just add the firewire and gigabit ethernet for a full $90 extra.

Why does it matter if you can't get certain items from Dell?

The G4 vs p3 argument is in terms of speed. a G4 can not compare with a p4.

"reasonable value for money" is subjective, just like my assesment is. :)

Well, I've used OS X a few times and for me it does not make up for the heightened cost of an Apple computer. Current marketshare seems to indicate that more people are content enough with what they have to not care for Apple's solution (it being more expensive will not help in that regard).



In the light of your analogy it might be telling that Steve Jobs got John Sculley at PepsiCo :grin:
Posted on 2004-01-26 06:46:39 by Hiroshimator
The G4 vs p3 argument is in terms of speed. a G4 can not compare with a p4.


That's silly, even PIII can compare with P4. In fact, that was a big problem to Intel at the time.
Besides, in certain tasks, G4 is still the king. It still holds the record for dnetc for example. Even P4s at 3x the clockspeed cannot beat it there. Clockspeed says nothing. It's about what you want to do, and how each CPU can do it.
And if you must compare a G5, at least compare it to an Opteron (after all, a G5 is also a 64-bit multiprocessor solution).

Current marketshare seems to indicate that more people are content enough with what they have to not care for Apple's solution (it being more expensive will not help in that regard).


This says nothing about how good or bad Apple's solution is though. Just that PC is "good enough".

In the light of your analogy it might be telling that Steve Jobs got John Sculley at PepsiCo


Yes, and?
Posted on 2004-01-26 07:11:07 by Henk-Jan
this may surprise you but "good enough" makes for a better price value ;)

I didn't say Apple's solutions were bad :)


nothing "and?" you made the analogy, you draw any lines...
Posted on 2004-01-26 07:13:34 by Hiroshimator
this may surprise you but "good enough" makes for a better price value


It doesn't surprise me at all. We weren't talking about price value anyway, we were talking about how important Apple was in the history of computing. You had to bring up the whole price thing, in order to try and discredit Apple in an unrelated way.

I didn't say Apple's solutions were bad


Bad, useless, whatever...
You were denying Apple's historical importance however.

nothing "and?" you made the analogy, you draw any lines...


As far as I can see, there are none, and you don't want to explain what you meant either... In that case, stop throwing useless hollow statements into the discussion, it is annoying.
Posted on 2004-01-26 07:21:59 by Henk-Jan
well, it is my belief that Apple wasn't as historically important as they themselves like to stress (time and time again, repeated with whatever iApp they bring out. You just know that in 2006 it will read that Apple on its own inspired the creation of an audio-editing industry through GarageBand) and as such I'm entitled to it. Just like you are. :)

This on its own says nothing about the quality of their product. No doubt their products must be good enough for some, else they wouldn't be sold.
Posted on 2004-01-26 07:27:26 by Hiroshimator