Where did it all go so wrong?

Where did it all go so wrong?
What if Woz stayed in charge?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtu.be/xdjAX5A-6qE
youtube.com/watch?v=rXONcuozpvw
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

He'd still be clinging to the Apple // architecture today.

And that would be bad how? We'd be using apples today instead of windows pc's, and apple wouldn't be shilling this crap

Reminder Steve Jobs died of AIDS
youtu.be/xdjAX5A-6qE

>le macfag meme
Gtfo, Sup Forums is a board of love

Apple was getting killed by IBM PC clones back then. Now it's not so bad. Sure their product suck but then suck less with Mac OS.

It's a real shame, they had a good thing going on with the apple ii, steve and his macintosh was filled with raw, unadulterated autism

Apple was initially making computers for hobbyists and hackers. Something like the Raspberry Pi is doing today. Back then it used to cost around $3000 to get into computers. Today a little over $30 for 1000 times the power.

Then they became a publicly traded company and began the downfall.

It would be nice if someone made a case for the RPi that had an integrated keyboard and matching monitor
shit would be lit

I'm sure somebody figured they could make a few bucks off of hipsters with that

apple is the greenest, most privacy driven, education friendly, profitable company in the world.

can you tell me what apple is doing wrong?

because they are a money grubbing corporation who only does things to the bare minimum to look good

>can you tell me what apple is doing wrong?
Not making enough people switch from Windows to Mac OS.

> most privacy driven
Hahaha even Google has a more restrictive privacy policy.

Apples policy declares your location and a lot more not personal and reserves the right to sell even private information to anyone as long as they claim to change something "restructuing" in their company.

>Hahaha even Google has a more restrictive privacy policy.

stopped reading there

>He fell for the apple has no privacy meme

To bad Jobs was a total asshole

"I get the worst, worst software almost always from Apple."
- Steve Wozniak, co-founder of Apple

The Apple II was a toy, and an Apple under Woz would have rightfully gone down the shitter with every other 8-bit shitbox maker by the late '80s when PCs that were superior in every fucking way imaginable started picking up speed.

He may have been a passionate hobbyist, good hardware designer and a useful tool for Jobs in the early days but nothing he did was really as special as everyone and their mother on this board tries to make it out to be. The Macintosh with all of its roughness early on won out for a reason, 8-bits were shit, and you only think they're good because you don't remember anything else.

It would have died an honorable death

I'm fairly certain that Apple IIs aren't klingon warriors

If being a vomit box maker barely kept on life support by the education market is what "honor" is then I can live without it, as long as I get a computer worth a damn out of the deal.

>tfw I'm getting similar keycaps
feelsgoodman

This.
woz was a one man hardware demolition team which was feasible in the 80s along with atari and others. shit would not have worked with him in charge.

Woz would engineer products that are effectively no different than all the others on the market, but are impossible to repair because he'll reduce the amount of components to the point where the only way to fix things is to replace the whole thing outright.

If Woz had stayed we'd have had a super IIgs!

There were rumors of several vastly enhanced prototypes built over the years at Apple but none were ever released. Only one, the "Mark Twain", has been revealed so far. The Mark Twain prototype (named for Twain's famous quote "The reports of my death are greatly exaggerated")[9] used ROM 04[10] and featured an 8 MHz 65C816, built-in Superdrive, 2MB RAM, and a hard drive.

The Macintosh would have stayed the high-end box and the IIgs would be for the hobbyist and educational market. Jobs killed this plan, the asshole.

The apple 2 could have been upgraded with the mac os and stayed backward compatable. There were tons of programs available for the apple 2. They kept making them untill 1992.

But let's be real, what's the point? By the time such a machine came to market I doubt it would be at all competitive with a low-end Macintosh with a far better software base and most importantly a future, the II was a dead-end platform on borrowed time from the start.

That's what a Macintosh LC with a IIe compatibility card basically was.

>what's the point
Unlike the Mac, the Apple II line was easy to expand for the hobbyist, easy to program, and had a bunch of really cool boards and a thriving cottage industry. Programming on the Mac was a bitch and it was expensive to even get the tools.

> the Apple II line was easy to expand for the hobbyist
By the time the IIgs was really out, so were NuBus Macs and lower-end models with PDS cards that also integrated many of the peripherals (or support for them) you needed cards for on a II.

Hobbyists were a dying minority by this period as well and already had plenty of better options than the ridiculously overpriced II lineup anyway.

>easy to program
Please, the MPW and the many other editors and compilers available for the Macintosh platform kicked ROM BASIC's shit in any day of the week. The only thing BASIC had in its favor was that it was pretty much forced on you.

>and had a bunch of really cool boards and a thriving cottage industry
No qualms or counterpoints against this, it's to be expected. But hobbyists aren't the only user demographic and they don't move systems actually worth a damn.

>and it was expensive to even get the tools.
Everything good was expensive as shit back then, good thing the Mac was chasing a market that actually had money to spend.

>already had plenty of better options than the ridiculously overpriced II lineup anyway
Wrong, fake news. Nothing was as easily expanded by the hobbyist as the Apple II series. Also the Apple II lineup was quite affordable. Are you a millennial?

>kicked ROM BASIC's shit
For the experienced programmer maybe, for the normie BASIC was perfect. For the more pro-tier developer the GSOS development tools (which I never obtained) allowed one to pump out high quality software.

You're missing the point of the Apple II, as did Steve. It was a *personal* computer for the USER DEVELOPER.

mac os required an m68k cpu :/

I don't think a snes cpu would have cut it

If Woz stayed in charge, perhaps AppleII would be the IBM-PC now. AppleII's were being cloned in far larger numbers during the early 80s. They used off-the-shelf components and were much cheaper to produce than the IBM 5150...

>Nothing was as easily expanded by the hobbyist as the Apple II series.
Except, you know, S-100 systems, PCs, and pretty much every fucking other semi-serious platform on the market. The easy to pop-off top is cool, but it's hardly impressive.

>Also the Apple II lineup was quite affordable.
Now you're just talking out of your ass at this point. A shitty IIe ran you about $1300 brand new which was up to $1000 more than a typical system of its class.

>For the experienced programmer maybe
No, I'm pretty sure basic luxuries like being able to actually read your code and edit it sanely are things that all human beings can enjoy. Just because it was all you knew as a kid does not make it good.

>You're missing the point of the Apple II, as did Steve. It was a *personal* computer for the USER DEVELOPER.
Nobody gives a shit about the damn "point" that god-emperor Woz failed to convey, what matters is what it actually ended up being. People didn't want a "personal computer for the USER DEVELOPER" they wanted a useful tool that actually did something, and weak-ass 6502 trash didn't satisfy that requirement anymore. That shit was a toy even in the '70s.

Given the incredible success of both the Macintosh and PC, it's pretty safe to say that thousands of USER DEVELOPERS got by just fine on far superior platforms, the Mac included.

Also better performing in many tasks despite the slower CPU. And expansion was much easier.

BYTE did a series of BASIC / Assembly benchmarks and the Apple II smoked the PC on many tasks.

>PCs
You're fucking joking right?

>A shitty IIe ran you about $1300 brand new
When it first came out, but then the IIgs came out and it was only $799 I believe. The IIe was much cheaper by that time.

>basic luxuries like being able to actually read your code and edit it sanely
Who says you have to edit your BASIC inside the interpreter?

You're obviously a kid, and probably Jewish too as you seem to go with the worst-case possible everything. Is this where Jews come to practice schule these days?

The Apple II is still alive, with many happy people joining the club each year, making boards and software and while this obviously frustrates and bothers you, it's something you'll learn to live with, or you'll kill yourself. Either way I don't know why you think people care about your uninformed opinions.

>If Woz stayed in charge, perhaps AppleII would be the IBM-PC now.
Nobody who could afford it was going to choose a shitty Apple II clone over an IBM compatible. Nobody.

>They used off-the-shelf components
So did the PC, except for maybe the ROMs, just like the PC.

>and were much cheaper to produce than the IBM 5150...
Because the off-the-shelf components they chose were cheaper and slower. PCs sported a faster CPU, up to 10 times the memory, higher resolution graphics, more interfaces in a stock configuration, mass-storage options actually suitable for a business environment, the list goes on and on. The 5150 was in an entirely different class.

It's not hard guys, come on. Take the fucking nostalgia goggles off for a second.

>up to 10 times
You could fit fucking 80GB RAM in an XT/AT? Really?

The 6502 could only address 64K.
We're not unironically shilling the shitty Macintosh Lite that was the IIgs, right? That didn't even come out when Woz was at the helm.

>You're fucking joking right?
No? Are you saying they didn't have an expansion bus? Are you willfully ignoring the massive market of third-party expansions available on the platform? Basically the entire reason the PC was so successful in the first place?

>When it first came out
And when it came out at that price it was facing off against already established 6502 systems that had already had price drops of their own. The IIgs wasn't all that competitive either with its original $999 price point while being shittier than a lot of other systems in that range like the Amiga or ST. At least it could draw some ugly primary colors on the screen so you didn't feel entirely jewed.

>Who says you have to edit your BASIC inside the interpreter?
I assumed that's what you meant, because if you're talking about just using an editor, then it's really no different from doing it on a Macintosh except the Macintosh will still kick the shit out of it thanks to its higher resolution that won't rape your eyes.

>The Apple II is still alive, with many happy people joining the club each year, making boards and software and while this obviously frustrates and bothers you
Oh, it's bait, whatever. It was fun to get to further articulate my truth bombs to drop on Woztards. Easily one of the dumbest circlejerks in retrocomputing.

Stay mad anons. I know millennials are mad that they missed out on all the cool fun and it'll never be the same for you as it was for us, but you'll find that rainbow some day!

youtube.com/watch?v=rXONcuozpvw

If Steve never happened, there would be no apple. Woz is an asocial autist, unable to do business.

That's called nostalgia, another way to say delusion.
It's okay though, it's not like you're fooling anyone who's actually touched that shit in the last 25 years.

>nostalgia
It's called collecting, preservation, and hobbyist computing. Clearly this bothers you (probably because you have no money for it) but the real mystery is why? Why does this bother you so badly that you feel the need to respond to every single post I make here?

It's really quite pathological and autistic of you. Many such cases. Sad!

nostalgia is not necessarily delusional famalam

But Jobs is the one who made Macs usable again. If not for him, they might have never been Unix machines.

It's that faggot Cook who ruined everything

Yeah. Early 2000's PowerMacs were the bomb. Honestly, if Apple had that same ethos that they did even in the early-mid 2000s, I wouldn't shit on people for owning Macs

This really. Jobs might have had some kinky ideas (like letting Jony put brushed metal and later skeu into the OS) but he was obsessed with quality. Cook is Mr. Chink Outsourcing Spirit Cooker Faggot Refugee man.

When was Woz at the helm?

a mac that was backward compatable with the ][ from the start would have sold more. The pc was always backwards compatable. When did the mac come out? 1984? They made the ][ untill 1992

Backwards compatibility turns your software into a boated piece of shit, though

ITT: anons who've forgotten 65xx history

>The 65816 was delayed and wasn't done right.
>Everyone switched to m68k
>Roger/Sophie Wilson took a look at the problem and designed the ARM cpu.
>The rest is history.

how?
The ][ even had a graphical os later on.
They could have made a better ][ with a graphical os you could plug any color monitor into. Instead they make a little shitty box with a tiny monochrome monitor.

>TFW actually gay and I still fucking hate applel

Windows is shit because of backwards compatibility

proof?
Windows is shit because of hardware differentials

The Mac didn't need the handful of extra sales from people who really wanted a shiny new graphical system just to run kludgy old II software that stood in opposition to the entire idea of the Mac in the first place, people who cared about compatibility bought a PC, with a software and hardware base that blew both of them out of the water.

There's a reason most graphical systems worth a shit in the '80s used monochrome displays, it beat the shit out of those awful blurry abortions. The Mac's target market didn't give a shit about some awful limp-dick color support that looked like garbage anyway.

Please, you couldn't actually articulate why if you tried. Why didn't you dumbshits learn from the '90s that dumping everything and starting over again with every new generation was a massive waste of time that accomplished nothing?

>The ][ even had a graphical os later on.
Apple's MouseDesk beat the crap out of GEOS.
For a start it ran under standard ProDOS.

the color double hi res on the ][ still had better dpi than the mac

Apple is a cheap knock-off of Amiga.

>They could have made a better ][ with a graphical os you could plug any color monitor into. Instead they make a little shitty box with a tiny monochrome monitor.
Color suport was built into every Apple ][.
Most Apple ][s shipped with mono screens because of cost. Also composite color screens had lousy reds.
The early Macs had 32-bit colorspace support but almost everybody ran them in mono for speed since color used 4 times as much data as mono.

i know the ][ had a color display. Thats exactly what i said.

best graphics mode I've seen is 640x200 which is god awful shit

the fuck are you talking about, they ran them in mono for higher resolutions

apple 2 was 280x192
dbl hires was 560x192

that's only 48 horizontal pixels on a Compact's 512 pixel horizontal resolution while nearly halving its 342 pixel vertical resolution, that's not really all that great especially when you're working with text

and it's not even tapping on higher-end Macs where 640x480 was a minimum, shit's in a totally different league no matter what

you don't need to think a platform is "superior" to still enjoy it, just see it for what it is, there's nothing wrong with it