What is with all the anti-Mac Labotomites?

I love this clip.

The guy is one of the software Architects at Microsoft. The clip is quite old... He was complaining about Mac OS X V10.0.0 which was somewhat unstable.

I've heard that the clip was originally edited in Final Cut Pro, because the video editor on Windows could not capture video from the guys camera.

=B-)

That didn't sound like OSX at all. It sounded like OS9.2 and earlier.

why the hell are yall still talking about this? Whats the point, its not like either side has a chance of "converting" anyone! Seriously, put the mouse down and walk away from the keyboard.

I don't disagree with anything you said, with only one exception:

You don't label Apple as a software company. I do. I agree that their main premise is to sell hardware, but since they do make software, and make it only run on their OS, and they make their OS only run on their hardware, I consider them to be a monopolistic software company, and it's much more so that way now since they are using the same type of hardware as Windows machines.

Microsoft, as you said, makes a special version of their OS for their X-Box. The X-Box is not a computer, it's a gaming platform. If they made Windows only run on hardware made by Microsoft (if they made computers), they'd be paralleling Apple's way of doing things.

Yes, Apple has made some great strides in introducing really good new hardware standards into the market. I couldn't agree more with you about that.

It's cool that someone else knows about the history behind the Amiga. Did you know if you take the cover off an Amiga 1000 you find all the original designer's signatures etched into the underside of the top cover? Useless trivia

Sorry to disagree. He mentions features that are unique to MacOS X. To be fair he was riffing on the entire "Macintosh Experience" and seems to have dug up every anti-mac concept he could think of... Most of his complaints are funny(to me) because he clearly does not "Get" the mac.

=B-)

Were you reading some historical text, and saw the word DOS in the IIgs spec?

Apple II systems NEVER ran MS-DOS. They ran a Apple developed disk operating system (which was much simpler in concept than MS-DOS) it added simple file management features to Applesoft BASIC (A Micro$ith product.) Later Apple rewrote the DOS 3.3 code from the ground up and added features to support hard drives (5MB Profile drives) and called this ProDOS.
When the Apple IIgs was in development they rewrote ProDOS and called it ProDOS16. PoDOS was also rewritten in 65816 code, and rebadged as ProDOS8.

The closest Apple II systems ever came to being cross platform was when Microsoft built and sold a Z-80 CPM card for the Apple II+ that allowed users to run Z-80 CPM applications.

Mac XL was a LISA. The LISA was a prototype of the Macintosh hardware that ran a variant of the UCSD PASCAL environment. The Mac XL was the same hardware with MacOS ROMs.... The Mac 128 was a redesign of the LISA that used custom ICs for the system logic rather than discreet TTL circuits, which brought the cost and size of the system down to rational levels.


The Apple IIgs was never expected to do well. Apple just needed a project to keep their Apple II engineers busy while they retrained to become Macintosh engineers. They hoped to make a few bucks in the edu market, but it was not a realistic expectation and they new it...

Apple dumped the IIgs and only once looked back... They made a IIe card for one of the 68K Performa models so that it could run Apple II software for educational markets.
Later when the CPUs on the last of the 68K got fast enough, two companies sold Apple IIgs emulators that worked faster than the original hardware... If you know where to look, you can still find them... They run just fine on Mac OS X

The death of the IIgs had nothing to do with the Mac II. The IIgs was killed because the 16 bit OS was draining resources from Apple's efforts to write better code for Macintosh.
The end of the 8-bit platform had come. Who wants 1975 technology when the 1984 tech. was clearly much more attractive....

=B-)

The c64 was a better machine... Too bad Commodore didn't know how to market it.
The closest competitor for performance was the Ti 99/4 which kicked butt on CPU horsepower, but the OS was a P.O.S. and Ti never did get the marketing side either.

=B-)

I guess I was primarily thinking about something he said near the beginning of the video, which was: that's OS9.x and earlier all the way--the aspects to it that are like using AOL.

Later he mentions the dock, and the bouncing update manager, which shows he's talking about OSX--but I've never had those sorts of issues with OSX. As someone said on this thread, he must have been talking about the very first versions of OSX.

He was, and it was sooo unreliable that they shipped it on a separate disk with new systems. OS X did NOT ship installed until 10.0.3

By 10.0.9 it was ready for prime-time. And yes you are right about os 9 and earlier being sandbox-like but they were still very good systems, and FAR more reliable than Windoz during the same time period. There are exceptions, OS 8.x sucked, as did 9.0 and 9.1. 7 was really bad until 7.5.5 which was a REALLY solid OS.

My personal choice is based on the amount of time I spend being a tech. If I have to support my system I'm going to go with the most reliable system I can get. If I lose a bit of functionality for that stability, so be it. I just don't have time to waste on Wintel boxes...
And Linux requires even more support, though it's more reliable, it requires an inordinate amount of effort to configure, and add functionality.

OSX is a good compromise. It does the most work with the least amount of effort on my part, and if I really need it I can dive into UNIX and get industrial performance from the system.

In my professional life I have used all of the major OSes and don't have a preference as long as someone pays me to support them / use them. Guess it makes me a compu-whore For my private life it's always been a Mac, and before that an Apple II...

=B-)

I remember a lot of this. I absolutely loved Apple's plain DOS. And I recall loathing proDOS, because it was so much clunkier and harder to use.

Of course I loathed MS-DOS most of all when I moved to using a PC, but by that point, I was pretty much only using that computer for word processing, so I didn't have to deal with it much.

Let's not confuse "A lot of bad business decisions" with "*all* bad business decisions".

If their business decisions were so good, how did they slide from a market share where they made the majority of the home computers being sold, to the tiny sliver of the market they have now?

I can still whistle the music for Alpiner.

Whee! We just convinced another person to purchase an Apple laptop here at work. Folks who are interested in MacOS are easy sells for the new MacBook Pro. We just tell them that it runs XP on a separate partition or in a virtual machine and they're sold.

I always love to see their faces when we say, "no really it is unix".

Wow, and for only an extra 700 dollars over what I would pay for an equal-or-better-in-every-stat true-PC equivilant.




Do you frequently find people so stupid that they didn't know OSX was based on unix before it even hit storeshelves, but yet have some deep need to run a UNIX-based system?

Yes, technically true. But In this context I think it can be understood, without head slapping, that the term PC, capitalized like that stands for a device made my a company other than Apple. Had i meant the more generic description of the desktop computer, I would have called it a personal computer and not a PC.

If you would stop slapping your forehead, you might keep up with the conversation here.

A program called DOS.MASTER enabled users to have multiple virtual DOS 3.3 partitions on a larger ProDOS volume.

Which I ran on both a //e and //gs. Dos Master was widely available at the time, and aknowledged by Apple...

And Yes Im smoking crack, want another hit?

In the last two and a half decades I used and owned a VC 20, a C64, an Atari ST, nearly all Amiga models, a few Compaqs, a Tandon, lots of Toshiba laptops, a few Sonys, half a dozen Macintosh models ... Currently my main machine is a MacBook but I am writing this on a Dell.

All of these machines had their pros and cons. All had their merits. Most of them sold in the millions.

When seeing discussions like this I always wonder what a funny mindset leads someone to make statements to the tune of "my choice is the only sensible one. All those who choose differently are just stupid jerks". There is a name for this mindset, but I am a polite person.

Exactly, Im not really pro or con for any OS / Hardware system... It's like arguing philips vs flathead screwdrivers... Similar tools for the same job.

also, whichever computer you choose, you are [pun] screwed [/pun] because a better version than what you bought is available a month or two later

Isn't the Mac Pro just a G5 with an intel processor though?

People pick different pens to write with, different kinds of paper to write on, different coloured binders to keep those papers in.

I grew up with my crib next to an Atari, we moved on to macs, and I stick with them. I'm comfortable using a PC, I'm using one at work right now, but my home is a mac museum. 6800, Powermac, eMac 1 year old iMac and one of the last ibooks, produced in early may. Most are the family's, but the imac and the ibook are mine, and they are my machines of choice. They're not technically superior, they're not tricked out, but they do everything I need them to do, perfectly.

I'm not computer illiterate, I just like macs. I have a PS2, Gamecube etc to play games on, I don't want to play them on my computer, even though most of the ones I care for are available anyway (Like SL).

The fact is, while I admit OS 9 and below drove me INSANE with constant crashing because we had a craptacular video card in there, OS X is just fine. I like that frou-frou eye-candy interface, the intuitive flow. Using a computer shouldn't be a chore. But that's just my personal taste, and my own personal reasoning. I don't hate using Windows at work or at school, and i don't struggle either. It serves a purpose, but it's just not for me. ^^;

No the MacIntels are a new chipset. This required a different memory controller, and I/O controller. The only similarities are the cases. For the new Quad Xeons the case was redesigned.

=B-)