Let's go back in time

let's go back in time

...

...

can anyone explain to me how PCs won out this era?

Like win 3.x and DOS was barely normie friendly and the computers were even less so. like how did apple fuck up this hard to lose? or were normies of late 80s early 90s smarter than normies of today?

normies didnt use computers

that is why the gui was still functional

Was 95 really that bad?

Because Macs were and still are proprietary pieces of shit.

PCs are cheaper, more efficient, customizable and better at every single thing than mac can do.

better at anything except having a great interface and basically being usable :)
back then apple was briefly winning

#include "ti83plus.inc"
.org $9D93
.db $BB,$6D

start:
ld hl, txt
bcall(_PutS)
bcall(_NewLine)
ret
txt:
db. "Hello world", 0
.end
end

I want for you to experience big bang.

Apple were not as developed for corporates.
MS-Dos was awesome, I started at V3.0

Computer use was almost completely for business. word processing and data processing saved a lot of man hours. people had to learn how to use computers to be more productive in the business world. learning apple computers was centered toward art, and cost a shitload. Windows was just cheaper. People already knew windows, and it was already business centered. No need to buy another machine just to learn about it. Apple was marketed to be a way to use computers to be productive while expressing yourself and paying more money. Pretty fucking gay if you ask me.

Not really, but the mac had those same features since OS 7, or so. There are TONS of apple videos on youtube where they explain this but the big take a ways I have gathered over the years are the following:

1.) Drive support Apple had it, MS Win95 didn't for a time.
2.) True Protected mode Apple had it, MS Win95 didn't because of it's backwards compatibility.--There are tons of things about this area but really it was shitty software and DOS apps 99% of the time.

This is all I can remember at the moment.

Really the Apple Fags of the time just wanted to say Macs were better though and nobody really had Win95 until 97' on up. In my elementary school even the teachers didn't have it until late 98

Everyone wants to go back in time.

When society was better and more homogeneous...before our world and culture was ruined.

We withdraw from this horrible world to a brighter past long gone...ask yourself why.

Only wealthy grad students had apples in the 90's, I remember because at the time my dad was going to CSU in SC and that's what everyone in every library we would go to had.

The Window's PCs were cheap compared to them but even still a windows computer or lap top at the time could buy you a shitty house or an OK car. People just didn't have thousands of dollars lying around back then. Back then grants were tight and most people got by with 50 bucks a week.

Then there was the problem of finding Apple's and Amiga's. Where were you going to go to buy one? People didn't even know about those systems let alone the software they ran. Hell my college teacher couldn't even buy a decent C Compiler in 89' to do his master's program.

Most people who needed or wanted a computer went to Staples or Radio Shack and hopefully they had what you needed.

They were established, compatible and plentiful. If you could imagine it, there was a piece of software or hardware to make it happen on a PC, and very cheaply on top of it.

They had early advantages carrying the IBM behind them, businesses gleefully ordered fleets of them for use by employees who would then get a PC of their own when clones took off to run the same stuff they used at work. They weren't that hard to run either, you don't need to be a savant to remember CD LOTUS; 123 especially after you've been paid to do it all day long. The average normie was even dumber with computers than they are today, really.

>like how did apple fuck up this hard to lose?
After ousting Jobs they recognized the consumer market was a shit shoot and basically an eternal race to the bottom, and instead focused mostly on the high-end and the profit margins with it, systems like the Macintosh II were in a different league from typical PC compatibles and generally targeted more specific use cases. They still had a decent software/hardware base of their own, but not nearly as big, and in the end they were often just too expensive if you wanted something good, better suited for the corner office than for the home or cubicle.

And by the time 3.x was shipping, they were starting to go downhill, paying more attention to the low end and suffering from an identity crisis as a result, with an absolutely bewildering assortment of different systems with mostly minute differences between them, and the new generation of fully 32-bit PCs pretty much on an even footing with them most regards beyond software needs and preference.

That's not necessarily true, there were plenty of business applications available for the Macintosh, and for that role they were fine, maybe even better thanks to that clean bitmapped interface, but they weren't the killer apps that everyone wanted, and as you said, the good stuff was too expensive, simply unpalatable for that use case.

People with enough money to buy computers (white people) were aware that Macs didn't have any software. Only reason Macs even existed past 1990 is Apple sucked lots of dick to get their "computers" put in public schools

Nobody in their right mind would spend 2500 dollars on a computer that didn't have any good software

Also, DOS was *kinda* tricky but not really. If what you were doing like 99.9 pct of pc users was simply running a program like 123 or wordperfect, not dicking around. Windows was super easy to use in those days as well

>Only reason Macs even existed past 1990 is Apple sucked lots of dick to get their "computers" put in public schools
They were a fixture in education since schools started lining their shiny new computer labs with Apple IIs in the mid '80s, it was and remains their strongest market.

And go check out the Macintosh Garden's archives some time, the problem wasn't really the utter lack of software that ran on them, it was the price of it and also the availability of it as described, there were plenty of specialty shops, but if you didn't have one or if yours didn't have what you were looking for, you were generally fucked unless maybe you wanted to take a chance playing three-figure russian roulette in the back pages of a magazine. Shit wasn't as straightforward or convenient to kit out as a PC if you were venturing outside of its strongest niches.

And I thought the green display on my Ti-83 was bad.

...

...

all other computers were propetiary and closed up while IBM PC was very moddable and anyone could manufacture upgrade parts

Not really, other than using off-the-shelf chips the PC wasn't really that standard or any less "proprietary" than something from say, Apple or Commodore. It used a non-standard expansion bus, some non-standard I/O ports and protocols, non-standard video, a non-standard mainboard, the list goes on. What made it big was the name behind it, and the off-the-shelf components making it easy for other manufacturers to straight up clone.

The kind of "standard" systems you're thinking of would be S-100 boxes, even those were originally proprietary as well, as everything else was back then.

All the people who read that book, probably survived. Or died after welding themselves in their bunkers.

Cheap shit always wins.

>2.) True Protected mode Apple had it, MS Win95 didn't because of it's backwards compatibility.--There are tons of things about this area but really it was shitty software and DOS apps 99% of the time.
Apple didn't really have that until Mac OS X. You could crash any classic Mac OS easily.

Jealous. I do have a QuickTake 100, though.

Mac OS didn't have any protected memory until OS X replaced it.

Driver support wasn't really a huge concern until USB and PCI became commonplace in the mac world, before that they didn't even share typical connections with wintel platforms.