[opendtv] Re: I'm starting to feel sorry for, and worry about

  • From: dan.grimes@xxxxxxxx
  • To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Thu, 5 Aug 2010 10:39:28 -0700

My reply here relates to the discussion of PC overtaking Apple sales in the
past, not of the modern era.

Kon Writes:

"Everything Apple produced before OSX was a total pile, no better than it's
Windows counterpart in terms of stability or quality. What else could one
expect from a cooperative multitasking OS, however?"

I disagree.  In my experience, up to Mac 9.6, the Mac was always more
stable and more productive (faster performance and consistent GUI across
multiple applications, etc).  I saw a T-shirt in the mid-'90s that stated
"Windows 95 = Macintosh '86".  So I must not be the only person that holds
this opinion.

"Hardware was and still is more expensive than a PC clone counterpart."

Absolutely, because the components that made up the Mac hardware were more
expensive...and superior by the opinion of some.  But I tend to agree with
Craig when he says that pricing was much closer when comparing performance,
specifications and features.

"Maybe Craig has forgotten about how Apple used to tout their OS by way of
pushing the fact that their non-Intel hardware and CPUs was 'vastly'
superior to Intel... oh wait, and then they switched to Intel."

When I developed code for each processor in a few of my college courses in
the mid to late '80s, I always thought the Motorola processors were
superior and usually a step ahead of Intel.  To me, they had a better (more
sophisticated) instruction set and more efficient architecture.  The only
way Intel could compete at some levels was to develop the RISC (not that
that is why the RISC was developed).  Was this not a commonly held belief
of that era?  I'm sure there was some leap-frogging in future development.
During my work with them, Motorola's processors not only cost more but
Motorola did not give away any development kits or documentation like Intel
did, making it much easier for the student to develop on the Intel and
gaining favor for the next generation of engineers.

"The difference between Apple and Microsoft is that with a MS OS it is so
much easier to create and skin your own controls than it is with OSX
(amusingly, you could reskin all Apple's widgets up until OSX 10.4)."

But in my opinion, one of the great things about Macintosh up to 9.6 was
the fact that every program had consistent GUIs and commands.  One could
almost operated a new program without instruction because one would know
exactly where the commands resided.  And with consistent shortcut keys
across all applications, efficiency was guaranteed.

Now, don't take it that I'm a Mac fanboy.  I was, until the transition to
OS-X when all of my Mac programs suddenly became unusable and no longer
developed after Apple bought them up.  So, many of my comments are "up to
9.6" because that is when I left the Mac world for the PC.  I certainly
believe OS-X and above is still a great OS but it is not in my daily
operations any longer.

Amusingly, we attempted to go all Mac in our new facility (2009) but not
all our applications and services would work on this OS so we went back to
Windows.  Particularly of interest, the HPs specified and purchased to work
with our applications (i.e., Adobe and Avid) were well over $6K each while
the Mac equivalent originally specified was actually less.

I guess my underlying point here is that one cannot discount the features
and performance of the Apple Macintosh just because the PC enjoys more
sales.  Throughout history, Apple has constantly made decisions that have
hurt their sales, but that doesn't mean that their appliance could not get
the job done or was inferior (with the exception of a generation or two of
Macs).  And I would argue that neither operating system, processor or
machine would have developed as fast if they didn't compete with each other
at certain levels.

Dan

Other related posts:

  1. Home
  2. opendtv
  3. Archive
  4. 08-2010