In honour of Steve Jobs - first Apple experience/hardware? Was it great?

[TotO]

Have you seen the Atari ST running in High-res? Paper-white, really stable image, and a nice 640x400.

Yes, I love the ST for that. A little price for doing great stuffs! (don't forget it was 5 years later)

As for the mouse... I guess Apple dropped the one-button mouse around 1989?

Why they do it?

I'm sorry, man, but you really sound like an Apple fanboy...

Giving arguments instead of trolling, don't make me a fanboy, like you do since two pages with the CPC.
I like many computers for qualities (CPC, Amiga, ST, Mac, ...) and like to share experiences, not doing "war" on boards.

[Gryzor]

Yes, I love the ST for that. A little price for doing great stuffs! (don't forget it was 5 years later)

The ST was released in 1985.

Why they do it?

Er... they didn't. I was being sarcastic.

Giving arguments instead of trolling, don't make me a fanboy, like you do since two pages with the CPC.

I haven't mentioned the CPC. And I said you sound like a fanboy because you really sound irritated.

[TotO]

The ST was released in 1985

Sure. I don't take care when I read. Sorry.
I have trought 640x400 was only availlable later and with a specific monitor.

Er... they didn't. I was being sarcastic.

Me too. Never an Apple mouse or trackpad came with more than one. And it was never a problem for Mac users.
If you realy want 2 buttons, you have better to buy a good Logitech. (Apple mice was never good. I dislike Magic Mouse)

I haven't mentioned the CPC. And I said you sound like a fanboy because you really sound irritated.

When I said "You", I'm not speaking about "you" only.
I'm not irritated but annoyed by reading always the same "received ideas" about Mac computers.
I like speaking by sharing point of view with arguments, not reading pages of closed view.

[Gryzor]

Yes, because calling someone a small child who doesn't like the food it doesn't eat is always a valid argument

[khisanth]

I always felt that the Apple Macintosh was for business use and design use, not really for the home market. Expensive, well designed and stylish. So good for productivity, but less so for getting to grips with coding and learning how it all works.

Having a GUI or DOS like the IBM made the computers feel professional, having BASIC on ROM as the main OS feels more hobbyist.

[TotO]

Yes, because calling someone a small child who doesn't like the food it doesn't eat is always a valid argument

I never said it was always possible to speak with peoples by sharing constructive things... But I prefert.

I always felt that the Apple Macintosh was for business use and design use, not really for the home market. Expensive, well designed and stylish. So good for productivity, but less so for getting to grips with coding and learning how it all works.

Exactly. A Machintosh was more a final tool for building creativity than a computer for programming, gaming or hacking.

[redbox]

Having a GUI or DOS like the IBM made the computers feel professional, having BASIC on ROM as the main OS feels more hobbyist.

This is a good point and what I like about the CPC - at the Ready prompt, the whole computer is accessible.


With the PC, there is still some access.


But with the Mac, I always felt like it was all taken away.

[TotO]

Have you seen the Atari ST [...] and a nice 640x400.

It was interlased and flickering, or it use a special monitor ? (like 1280x960 on TT)

Spoiler: ShowHide

MAC or ST ?

[TFM]

Actually is amazing and shocking in the same time how much people (probably most up to nearly all humanoids) judge an computer by the appearance of its operating system.
 
In fact people don’t care about the hard facts; most of them just look at it and judge by emotions. Good to know for marketing, but very sad for OS developers.
 
If you have some flashy, kinky and slow stuff, then people will buy it for any price. But a decent, sober and efficient machine will not be recognized. 
 

[redbox]

In fact people don’t care about the hard facts; most of them just look at it and judge by emotions. Good to know for marketing, but very sad for OS developers.

This is a very interesting point.  Using a computer is an 'emotional' experience to most (mainly 'users', not 'programmers' etc) and Apple certainly did capitalise on this.  But the same must be true in retrospect - otherwise why would we still be bothering with the CPC?

If you have some flashy, kinky and slow stuff, then people will buy it for any price. But a decent, sober and efficient machine will not be recognized. 

Again, depends on who's using it.  Unix/Linux is pretty popular 

[TFM]

Well, I'm using the CPC because for me it's the superior system compared to all others.
 
Once I said when CPUs are 100x faster and memory is 100x bigger and hard-discs contain 100x more, then i will get a new computer.
But now we have factors of 100.000 and I still stick with the CPC, because I can still do things better with the CPC than with all other systems. For me the CPC is still the superior system. Just the most effective system, and ... I like it.
 
However, when we have the first cpu's running with photons instead of electrons, then I will get a new computer ;-)
 
 

[Gryzor]

Exactly. A Machintosh was more a final tool for building creativity than a computer for programming, gaming or hacking.

Ok, maybe. So what are all those everyday users doing with it? Writing for their blogs? And, also, since Photoshop etc was released for Windows what was left?

It was interlased and flickering, or it use a special monitor ?

Not talking about the TT, this was a different beast altogether. I'm talking about the ST with the high-res monitor. An absolute pleasure to work on.

[redbox]

I'm talking about the ST with the high-res monitor. An absolute pleasure to work on.

I read in Retro Gamer that the ST development was code-named RBP, being "Rock Bottom Price".

This is a similar ethos to Alan Sugars, so could go some way to explain why CPC users tend to like the ST so much.

Mind you, there are a lot that went to the Amiga.  Maybe those people didn't have the playground Commodore arguments with their friends 

[Gryzor]

The CPC had lots in common in its philosophy with the ST: create something very decent, all-in-one, with off-the-shelf components as much as possible for the lowest achievable price.

I moved to the ST disliking Commodore, of course, but the main concern was price; got a second-hand 1040STFM whereas I couldn't approach the A500...

[redbox]

I moved to the ST disliking Commodore, of course, but the main concern was price; got a second-hand 1040STFM whereas I couldn't approach the A500...

And you saved your soul in the process 

[Gryzor]

We called that an "added bonus"

I did miss the good old days when I had a dedicated monitor, but the thought of a A500+1084S was beyond me.

[steve]

I had an Amiga 1200 which I used with a CTM640.

[Gryzor]

Yeah, but I had to sell my complete 6128 to fund my ST

[TotO]

Ok, maybe. So what are all those everyday users doing with it? Writing for their blogs? And, also, since Photoshop etc was released for Windows what was left?

Like on PC, but with a different OS and different/shared softwares ?

OSX comes with nice programs "out of the box".
- iTunes for music
- iPhoto for pictures
- iMovie for video capture/editing
- iDVD for finalize and add menus
- iWeb for site and blogs
- XCode, for programming

And more classics applications for web/mail/chat ...
All Apple softwares (and some 3th party) are interconnected for sharing content. (music and photo for dvd or movies, web, etc. All with drag & drop)

Not talking about the TT, this was a different beast altogether. I'm talking about the ST with the high-res monitor. An absolute pleasure to work on.

I have just asked if the ST got a special "progressive display" monitor for displaying 640x400 (like TT got one for the 1280x960). So the answer if yes. It's very cool, I never saw it !

[mahlemiut]

The Sharp X68000 managed 768x512 in glorious 16-bit colour back in 1987.  Japan liked high resolution displays, since Japanese is hard to read at 320x200

[TotO]

The Sharp X68000 managed 768x512 in glorious 16-bit colour back in 1987.  Japan liked high resolution displays, since Japanese is hard to read at 320x200

I got a X68000 monitor. It's multiscan (15/31KHz) and can display progressive resolutions.
X68000 was the best 16bit computer ever. (for gamers )

[redbox]

Whenever you talk about Apple and Macs between fans and sceptics, something always happens: The sceptics pan the hardware and the fans fall back onto the software.  "Buts OSX is great! It comes with loads of apps!".


If it's the software that makes the Mac, then you've been badly ripped off because the hardware is pretty uninspiring and expensive for what it is, and you just paid one huge price for OSX and iWhatever.

[Gryzor]

I wouldn't put it so categorically, but there is definitely truth in that. Which is why Apple won't hear about opening OSX to normal PCs (even if they can run it) - if they do, they know they're kind of finished...

[awergh]

I wouldn't put it so categorically, but there is definitely truth in that. Which is why Apple won't hear about opening OSX to normal PCs (even if they can run it) - if they do, they know they're kind of finished...

Well didn't clones almost finish off apple previously?


Personally OSX doesn't work for me whenever I have used it. I just dislike the integrated menu bar, the dock and despise floating windows in applications they just annoy me so pretty much I don't like anything about OSX essentially. Not that I've used it a whole lot but I doubt I could get over those issues or the complete lack of freedom which would be the real issue.


I spose I could answer the original topic though,
my first apple experience was in primary school on System 7 and I don't think I thought much of it really I didn't think it any better or worse then what I was used to with Windows 3.1 so I guess the experience was indifferent, the games were much more memorable then the OS itself, I really don't remember doing anything much resembling school work. Later on I didn't find MacOS8/9 any better in experience to Windows 95/98 either so I guess it wasn't a great experience it wasn't bad it just wasn't some magical experience that changed my view on life forever and that made me want to go buy overpriced shiny things.

[TotO]

If it's the software that makes the Mac, then you've been badly ripped off because the hardware is pretty uninspiring and expensive for what it is, and you just paid one huge price for OSX and iWhatever.

I have to remember you that 80's PC are very expansive too... And both are sold by millions because professional users need professional softwares... And both don't cost the selling price.
It's why, CPC, ST, Amiga... Got succes from home use.
If an Atari ST can run Microsoft programs, PC and Mac may not got succes too!

When I chose a computer, it's first for using softwares, not for doing benchmark and fap...
After, remember that Apple Mac cost around the same price of  Sony PC and both cost twice the price of a lowcost PC.

And you know what ? Some people buy MacBook for running Windows7 on it. No OSX.
It's their choices, they chose the hardware not the software. And then ?

EDIT :
Pretty Uninspired  hardware ? Speaking about Laptop Mac :
- Aluminium and glass materials. (no cheap plastics)
- Backlight keyboard. (no printed keys loosing it's paint in time)
- Autoadjust screen luminosity
- Hi-res multi-touch trackpad
- Think, quiet and robust
...