Is the original Macintosh the greatest computer ever created? Yes or yes?

Is the original Macintosh the greatest computer ever created? Yes or yes?

Provide reason(s) why.

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GEOS_(8-bit_operating_system)
youtube.com/watch?v=-9ZQVlgfEAc
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

Every computer now is pretty much a Macintosh.

The original Mac.... no. Even at the time it wasn't good. A black and white screen with no ability for expansion and was over priced compared to most of the competition.

>with no ability for expansion
I highly doubt that is factual.

It had external ports for modems and printers and whatnot, but no internal slots for hardware like PCs of the period and the Apple II. I should have been more clear.

I understand what you meant now, and I agree with you completely.

s:expansion:upgrading:g

Wrong. The standard desktop computer eventually came to resemble early Sun workstations, which were out before the Mac. We have still not really moved beyond this configuration.

No because apple

Correct answer is the PC-98

yes,
reason: as i learned from art history 101, it started a gay computing movement.

...

>commercial failure
>critical failure
>laughing stock of the personal computer scene of the time
>put in evidence what a hack job was, and got if fired for good from his own company

You spelled Amiga wrong, moron

NOBODY CARES ABOUT YOU.

Whats up with the butthurt?

What the fuck are you on about? We are not talking about Steve Jobs. Gtfo homofag.

>poor RAM compliment
>non-existent mass storage options
>no multitasking operating system support
didn't get good until the Plus, hell arguably not until the Mac II turned the platform into a serious contender

you can't really fault the graphics, B&W bitmapped displays were pretty much the standard for graphical systems back then, since the kind of work they were intended to excel at didn't need to be rendered (ruined) in some ugly as sin brightly-colored gimmick palette

the rest is very true though

that's even more ludicrous than the retard you replied to, Sun was a literally who outside of the high-end before the dotcom boom made them big and didn't really stand out to the point of meaningfully impacting consumer systems

Is it true that the Apple III was designed without fans so it would be a shitty computer and people would change to a Mac instead?

not really, it came out three years before even the Lisa and was pretty much dead and buried by the time the Mac hit the shelves

it was designed with no fans because lil' Steve was the Amazing Uncompromising Autist and despised fans in all forms

Jobs hated fans in general, believing they'd be too distracting.

The Apple III's fault was being designed by suits and rushed to market.

That'd be the SE/30

Apple IIGS was better. Admittedly, the Macintosh's CPU had a better clock speed, but that's where the pros end. The IIGS could support up to 8MB of RAM while the Macintosh - only 4. The Apple IIGS had a 4000 color display, the Macintosh had a black and white display. The Macintosh had a single voice sound card which couldn't handle music synthesis, while the IIGS had a 32 oscillator sound card which could handle music just fine. The IIGS had 8 expansion sockets, while the Macintosh had none at all.

The IIGS cost only $999 while the Macintosh - $2599, even though the IIGS was released two years later and was marketed parallel to the Macintosh for a long time.

Do the math.

>Do the math.
k

Atari ST or Amiga.

>citing the 4,096 color palette that couldn't be fully utilized in a blatant effort to make the platform out to be more than it really was
please stop using this sleazy tactic, the IIgs could display a maximum of 16 of those colors at a low resolution
color in general wasn't even really a definitive advantage at this time, pre-8bit color was a consumer gimmick and ugly as sin, the costly memory you put towards those 16 obnoxiously bright shades was better spent on upping the resolution or hell even just omitting it and using the money saved elsewhere where it actually mattered

same goes for the sound, that's great if you're playing games or making music, but most macs were designed and put to work for publishing or office work and for those tasks it was just a waste of space

the RAM and expansion are legitimate advantages, but history seems to show that it doesn't matter, if you wanted something modular and expandable, you bought a PC that ripped IIgs shit all day long in that arena, or the Mac II that came out six months later and matched or surpassed pretty much every one of these complaints handily. while it cost more due to the 55-or-die markup bullshit, it wasn't really a problem for the intended market; consumers belonged to IBM and friends now, nothing was ever going to change that

Any number that can be realistically utilized is still better than 2.

Turing machine.

and as I already said; not when it looks like garbage and wastes resources better spent elsewhere
publishers didn't need a couple shit primary colors, they needed resolution and a nice interface

A macinWHAT?
Steve WHO?

mactoddlers BTFO

>glacial ass and bloat: the computing platform

>lying
For what cause?
Move the goalposts more lad

???

macintosh 128k - amiga a1000
jan 1984 - jul 1985
68k 7.8MHz (6MHz effective, due to design) - 68k 7.16MHz
128k ram, not upgradable - 256k ram, upgradable to 512k
400k floppy - 880k floppy
1bit, 512x342 video, hope you like that 9" CRT, because there's no external display support - 12bit color up to 320x512i, 4bit color up to 640x512i, progressive modes available with half the horizontal lines
no expansion slot - one expansion slot
simple 8bit mono sound - 4 voice, stereo, 8bit, hardware mixed sound

Macintosh? No. Apple II, yes.

Wow, with those specs, you'd think they'd be king of the world and owning everyone's shit now.

>i
This alone ruins it. The Mac display may be tiny but it's crisp as fuck, not gimped on vertical resolution and the interface was nice.

the a1000 could do 320x256 in 12bit color, or 640x256 in 4 bit color
i don't know about you, but i'd rather have color with fewer lines and monochrome

if you were only using it for desktop publishing, then it'd be ok, i suppose

than* monochrome

and yes, the display on the mac was pretty sharp, despite the size, due to it being a black and white CRT, it has no color mask
but it's still pretty tiny, it's be nice if they at least has an option for an external monitor

commodore could into computer, but not business

It used the common power cords, pretty subtoptimal for a mac, it seems.

Every Mac I've ever used had a standard power cord

I think it really depends on what you want to do. I'll definitely take an Amiga if my primary interest is games, pixel art, sound, or anything else purely entertainment related.

But for spreadsheets, publishing, any kind of text/information processing I'd definitely pick a Mac or similar monochrome system, especially a Plus with real storage options on the table. It may be underwhelming for entertainment but the interface and the overall higher-quality display definitely make a difference if you're going to stare at it for a long time. I've never been much for older color systems when it comes to "productive" use, and there's still some fun stuff you can play with in 1-bit.

>it's be nice if they at least has an option for an external monitor
*Technically* you could on the SCSI compacts, as hackish as the implementation looks. They had decent color support too depending on what you picked.

Commodore couldn't people who made the 64 and Amiga could.

yea, i get where you're coming from

if it was a business picking out machines for typical office tasks, the mac with it's small, fanless design and higher resolution, progressive, sharp display makes more sense

but you'd get more out of the amiga for home use (except of course, the case of it being used primarily/purely as a work machine)

Commodore took the money they made with the Amiga and tried to get into the x86 PC market. They got crushed there and went under.

Yeah as a home platform it wasn't really as compelling, software was probably a bitch, some of the shit I run on my stuff carried ridiculous price tags before inflation.

>le prove me wronk xDDDDDDDDDDD

Your monitor broken son? Tough shit, send in the whole computer for repair :^)

I'd say the brand made the biggest dent in them. The success of the 64 gave them a great head start but was bound to haunt them later. Americans didn't really seem to take their later products seriously; they were the company that made cheap christmas gifts for your kids and fleet shitboxes for BASIC courses, not serious productivity tools. It didn't help that they mostly marketed and tailored their products to home users on top of it.

Amiga was great in a completely different way.

If Steve Jobs had made a truce with Commodore, the resulting system would've been unstoppable in the market, especially against the PCs of the time.

Amiga. Better and cheaper.

NO

this one is

I would argue that without the original Macintosh, a lot of things that followed wouldn't have happened.

On some level, even more impressive to me is GEOS on the Commodore 64, inspired by the Mac. Take a look at what a small startup did with half the memory of the Mac and a tiny 8-bit 6502. What an accomplishment!

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GEOS_(8-bit_operating_system)

i actually liked two and a half men more before charlie sheen got replaced by this chump

Lisa came earlier and was better. It had multitasking, rings and file descriptors like in UNIX and basically more serious.

>single-task
>b&w
Come to think, it's not that impressive when you learn how did they make software back then, but it's still impressive how they managed to embrace the limitations.

The Mac was single-task in the beginning.

And don't forget that the C64 was definitely a color computer!

>The Mac was single-task in the beginning.
I know, and I like GEOS more, if that matters.

C64 is a truly impressive machine.

>Is the original Macintosh the greatest computer ever created?
not even close
$5000 for a 128k machine? get fucked.

Apple][, Commodore64 were both damn good, with the Commodore64 being nearly perfect (except for expensive, slow disk drives)

I often wonder what the world would be like if Woz was hired by Commodore in the early '70s

>underpowered pos even when compared to the applel 2
>greatest computer ever created

even with only 128k of memory the II (and 64) was still a toy in comparison especially when they fixed the lack of RAM pretty much immediately with the 512k

youtube.com/watch?v=-9ZQVlgfEAc

JOBS

ETERNALLY

BLOWN

THE

FUCK

OUT

PC's were shit back then, but back then, it wasn't just "mac vs. pc", there were lots of options (which was both good and bad in their own ways)

i preferred the look of the eMac over that at the time
it was like a somewhat more professional-looking iMac

>PC's were shit back then
wrong

I've had PCs since the early 80s. And while some other systems had better sound and graphics, PCs dominated productivity, and communication. They were also immensely more upgradable. And by the time the 386 hit, it was all over.

stock PC's were shit, it was the expandability which pulled them ahead, being able to choose your configuration and upgrade core functions like with IO controllers, sound cards, network cards, video cards, etc was very compelling

basically, they were more /flexible/

>PCs dominated productivity
the what?

>stock PC's were shit
>implying they are not today

>t. mactoddler

>productivity
work. job. make money with computer.
aka word processor, spreadsheet, database, dial-up and terminal emulation, etc.

>computer

No. Because the original Amiga was better and $1000 less.

> not wanting a fan in the Apple III because Jobs was an autistic design fag.

Kys OP. Apple has always been shit because their products are design over function.

I don't understand what are you implying.

That explains, thanks.

/thread

>designed by apple
>built in Japan by IBM
Find a flaw

Steve's autism created Kensington

I can't. Dick is diamonds.

no clit

here's a thinkpad from around the same time

>apple
Found your problem.

>shitposter

...

>"Is the original Macintosh the greatest computer ever created?"
>greatest computer ever created

>"They were also immensely more upgradable."
>couldn't match macs with all their upgrades

There's a reason why the desktop publishing revolution happened on Mac.

How will mactoddlers ever recover?

This, the best 68k Macintosh is still an Amiga.

i didn't know amiga had photoshop and all those other great programs macs had

oh wait, kek, it didn't

nah that would be the surface pro 4

That's Dr. Carter from ER.

What did it do better than any other computer at the time? I can only remember using a paint program and maybe playing games at school in the early 90s.

The Amiga was objectively better from a hardware standpoint, but yes, software support was not as good.

Well it had a GUI for a start... It pre-dated GEM (1985), GEOS (1986), Windows (late-1985), Amiga Workbench (1985). About the only precursor was Apple's own Lisa Office. Since PARC's Alto systems weren't commercially available.

Thanks.

>Implying you can't virtualize Mac OS on an Amiga at full speed.
>Implying the fastest machine to run 68k Mac OS is not an "060 Amiga
Stop embarrassing yourselves.

I am under the sinking impression that everyone in this thread is a fucking retard.

This.

They actually think at the time the original Macintosh came out it was good, while there was the IIgs and Amiga.

The Amiga 1000 came out 18 months later in July of '85. The IIgs came out in Sept. '86! In early 1984 the Macintosh was the only game in town.

and nobody gave a fuck about it

Selling 70,000 computers in the first 100 days doesn't sound like a computer that nobody gave a fuck about.

Who needs Photoshop when you have Deluxe Paint at a fraction of the cost?

Mainstream, consumer market computers, or are you going to bring up obscure workstations that not even most computer geeks knew of at the time?

I love my iMac.

which model of iMac do you have?

i always wanted to get a launch model just to have one.