RSSWhat hath Mac wrought? A remembrance after a quarter-century
By Scott M. Fulton, III | Published November 6, 2009, 4:02 PM
[ME's NOTE: This article was originally published on January 30, 2009, here in Betanews. I'm reprinting it today in honor of the memory of a man I refer to in this article, who was one of my early mentors in computing and in business, and who passed away last October 26: Elmer Zen "E.Z." Million, the proprietor of the original Southwest Computer Conference, later the CEO of private aircraft services company Million Air, and occasional candidate for some lofty, high Oklahoma office. He was a brilliant businessman, a true fiscal conservative who really did teach me how to run a business, through long hours in his office poring over accurately written ledgers. And he was the absolute antithesis of everything people assumed a "computer pioneer" was, but he was all of that and more. I dedicate this to E.Z.'s enduring memory.]
The reason there's a Macintosh today is not because of some brilliant flash of engineering genius, as many revisionists like to believe. It's because Apple had the audacity to make a few big mistakes first, and learn from them.
The main reason I wasn't escorted out of those first computer conferences, even though they typically displayed signs that expressly forbade anyone under 18 from entering, was because I looked the part of someone older who knew what he was doing. The moustache and the tailored suit somehow helped, like a rookie NASCAR driver who wanted to fit in with the big boys in the pit crews.
It helped even more to know some people. Three decades ago now, I'd gotten to know a fellow who was one of the first great regional conference organizers, a promoter and business consultant whose given name truly was Elmer Zen Million. At first, he called me "The Kid," which always made me shrink a little because that's exactly what I tried not to look like at the time. After a few years, I was Scott to him and he was E.Z., and I was exempt from the 18-or-under rule...until one year when it finally didn't matter. I was a private consultant, earning a small living, and just introducing myself to the publishers who would soon jump-start my career.
It was the winter of 1983, one month before the rule wouldn't matter anymore. By this time, a local computer store called High Technology had become one of Apple Computer's top-selling independent retailers. I used to hang around that store and drum up business for myself, finding clients and helping them set up Apple II and Atari 800 computers. They didn't mind because I'd end up sending my own customers back to them for more software, which was a high-margin business then. Folks were more interested in buying a computer that ran something weird-sounding like VisiCalc or Electric Pencil if they knew they'd have the help of someone who could give them a hand.
So High Tech had purchased the prime space at one of E.Z.'s semi-annual computer conferences, and I was there to help set up. The store manager had reserved a big chunk of his floor display for the arrival of a computer he hadn't seen yet. It was coming directly from Apple, its delivery was already a few days late, and all we knew about it was that it was not the "Apple IV" that had been rumored, and that it would cost ten thousand dollars.
"So are you sure you want The Kid around?" asked one fellow. "Who, Scott?" replied the High Tech man. "Are you kidding? I don't even have an instruction manual for this thing. He's the only hope we have."
The crate arrived after lunch, literally looking like the "major award" shipped to Ralphie's dad in the movie A Christmas Story. We were told to move our food and drinks a respectable distance from this major device since we wouldn't know how delicate it would be, or how sensitive to soda pop drops and the grease from hot dogs. Some workmen gently extracted the device from its container, a process which consumed two hours, during which I probably consumed a six-pack of Dr. Pepper. And when it was eventually set up, it was missing its startup disk.
![The first attempt at a Macintosh: Apple's 're-invented' Lisa, model 1 (1983) [Photo credit: ComputerHistory.org]](http://images.betanews.com/media/2642.jpg "The first attempt at a Macintosh: Apple's 're-invented' Lisa, model 1 (1983) [Photo credit: ComputerHistory.org]")
A High Tech associate eventually found it back at the store and drove it downtown, but in the meantime, we sat pondering what this new thing was going to do. "Lisa," we'd concluded, must be a code-name and not the final brand. Somebody thought it would eventually be the Apple IV anyway, but the High Tech manager had heard from Cupertino that the Roman numerals had been declared history after "III."
I saw that Lisa came with a "puck." At least that's what I thought it was called; two years earlier, hanging around another computer conference, a guy from Tektronix instructed me on how to use its CAD/CAM system. It came with a digitizer device that you placed on a table called a "puck," and you could also slide it along the left side of the table to select functions for the program.
I had met a guy the year before who called it a "mouse," but I thought it was a stupid name, and surely not the one anyone would settle upon. It was only several years later, after sorting through the mountain of business cards I'd collected over the years, that I realized, in one of those "holy-crap" moments, that the guy was Doug Engelbart.
And since I had also been privy to a demonstration of the Xerox STAR Workstation a year or so earlier (although the fellow there also refused to call it a "mouse"), I was the one designated to flip the switch on Lisa. It took me about an hour to figure out how to boot the thing. You couldn't even pull out the diskette by yourself; a software switch made the disk slide out slowly and deliberately, like teasing a sideways sloth and being teased back. Even E.Z. laughed at me as he walked by, at one point saying, "Who would've thought Apple would be the one to make The System That Stumped Scott?"
It was mid-afternoon, and only when the electric sloth stopped spitting out cherry-bomb icons did we start drawing a crowd. Although I did hear one fellow praise the cherry-bombs, with language that stuck with me: "You know, if you think about it, that's not a bad deal," he said. "Imagine an operating system that's so smart that it knows it's hosed."
We spent the next several hours trying to guess how this most "intuitive" of systems worked, and I took extensive notes. By "we" at this point, I mean about a few hundred people -- an audience had formed outside our table. Some brought out some Samsonite folding chairs, and E.Z. started making the rounds to make sure everyone was comfortable and had refreshments.
We guessed wrong far more often than we guessed right. Ideas for what to do next were being shouted fast and furiously from folks in the crowd. The idea with Lisa was that you had this document, which you tore off from this on-screen pad using the puck. Then you used a menu to decide what to do with this open scrap of paper. Once we found LisaDraw, we started going to town with it. That's when I could let the puck go for awhile and let other people (carefully, now, this thing costs ten grand) experiment with making the arrow move the way their hands moved.
The most amazing thing I remember was how many folks were afraid of it. Psychologists who've studied the history of advertising have pointed out that it's color that attracts people to a new gadget first and foremost. People thought of the Apple II, and even Apple's logo, as being about color; this thing was monochrome and beige, like a brick of vanilla ice cream left to melt in the sun. We had decided "Lisa" couldn't possibly have been Jobs' or Wozniak's girlfriend -- perhaps a junior-high-school Spanish teacher, but not anyone close.
[Photo credit: An original Lisa advertisement, from ComputerHistory.org]
Next: The world that made the Mac...
I didn't know EZ Million died. EZ come, EZ go I guess. He was a large supporter of my university's arch rival in oklahoma. Odd dude. ran for lt governor - didn't win.
Score: 0
|Funny, some things never change:
"But even the first Macs weren't brilliant, not really. They suffered from what we all perceived to be Steve Jobs' basic nature to go with whatever he had at the time, explaining that it's all by design, and if we didn't get it, then it's our fault. The first Mac was a closed system"
Score: 0
|Oh, good, you've dug up another article from earlier this year and presented it as brand new.
Score: -3
|BetaNews needs to seriously consider getting a whole new writing team.
Score: -2
|hasn't Wired, Gizmodo, Engadget, etc done enough of these articles? jesus christ, be original
Score: -3
|Yet another moron who skipped the note at the top of this article only to grace us with another retard comment.
Score: 0
|Personal computers have come a long way. It feels like a million years ago when i wrote my first game for a mac. Things have really changed. I must say regardless of apple or microsoft, things are alot more meaningful with personal computers now then back then.
Score: 0
|Interesting flame war so far from junior workers (ex-workers?) in the micro-micro industries. Microsoft's success was getting the CEO of the biggest sugared-water supplier in the world, to run the financially-successful, corrupt, illegal, immoral company known internationally as "Microsoft": look at the many national & international successful prosecutions against Microsoft.
Originally I went DR-DOS, TOS (Atari ST), before being forced to Vista. M$'s "mistakes" were having faulty BIOS's, and allowing copy cats to assist its ascension into planetary dominance. Apple's mistakes was in NOT allying with imitators, copy cats, and staying with the 68000 CPUs. If they grabbed the "ethics", "morality" and "illegallity" of M$, then I'd be with them again.
The history of the demise and death of Apple is still being written; not by myself in silly, childish flame wars, but by the planet at large.
Apple people to me, seem more honest, more innocent, less corrupt, more simply-minded. Like the lastest 1/ 2/ 3 / 4 /5 (? very confusing) button mouse that's on the current lines of Apples.
Score: -2
|If you're talking about John Sculley from PepsiCo, he worked at Apple, not Microsoft and he was the inspiration behind the Newton Messenger.
Score: 0
|Steve Jobs bought stock for Xerox in 1979. As a stock holder, he went on a tour of the Palo Alto Research Center where he saw the revolutionizing GUI.
Steve Jobs developed the Apple Lisa OS just like the operating system he saw while on tour at Xerox.
Being a stock holder and seeing an idea that Xerox decided not to expand on is NOT CONSIDERED LEGAL PAYMENT nor give him any of the rights.
Score: 0
|Then when should Xerox expect to see licensing efforts and royalties from MS, Linux and all the rest?
Or, like your friend below, does your 'righteous indignation' only extend as far as the mention of Apple???????
One can only imagine the suits pending over the first use of rubber tires on the car. Or of a steering wheel as opposed to a rope...or of independent padded seats, or of the gasoline engine...
Get over it.
Score: -2
|Not once did I mention ANY reference to Microsoft or Linux, nor did I say they DIDN'T copy Apple's OS in anyways.
Everyone copied someone. Apple is the disgusting company that copied Xerox, called it their own...and proceeded to sue Microsoft and HP for copyright infringement! If you're going to be illicit, misewell be completely unethical at the same time!
Congratulations on the cute metaphor, but it is completely irrelevant to my comment.
Score: 0
|"Not once did I mention ANY reference to Microsoft or Linux"
Exactly my point! And the one your selective attention ignored!
And then you go on to glibly state that "Everyone copies someone" as you excuse others while you myopically focus on Apple.
Sit down.
Your selective ire is simply a whine.
Score: -2
|I didn't "whine".
I was providing correct information! I WAS NOT blaming Apple for anything. Hell, congratulate Steve for noticing the future of OS before Bill.
ALL I was saying is that the information provided is incorrect, my point may be strong, but its not an accusation or a "stab" at your beloved Apple.
You should re-read my comments and realize that my rebutal was towards other comments and in no way a form of angst towards Apple or their products.
Score: 0
|The original GUI using mouse and windows was from Zerox and that's where Apple stole it.
Score: -3
|Apple did not steal anything; they paid Xerox in millions of dollars worth of stock options and Xerox invited them to come and see the Alto. Apple used the ideas with their permission and designed everything for the Lisa and Macintosh from scratch, nothing was stolen.
Score: 0
|LOL. Apple "stole" the GUI from Xerox but Xerox never once sued Apple over it but rather received payment from Apple that they Gladly excepted. O_o ?
Kids this is why you should never use crack.
Score: -7
|(see comment above)
You say they paid for the OS by buying stock and then they invited them to present their OS? More like they bought stock, took a tour as the stock holder where they SAW the OS...The bought stocks and then saw the OS, therefore the stocks could never be "payment" of the OS.
XEROX DID SUE APPLE
This is why you shouldnt use crack.
http://query.nytimes.com...9F936A25751C1A96F948260
"Xerox's suit, which was filed in Federal District Court, charges Apple with copyright misrepresentation and seeks more than $150 million in royalties and damages."
Score: 0
|"Ronald S. Laurie, a copyright lawyer with Irell & Minella in Menlo Park, Calif., said Xerox's claim could be weakened because of the long delay in filing suit, some five years after the introduction of the Macintosh. ''There's a legal doctrine that you can't just sit around while someone's infringing your rights and not complain,'' he said.
In addition, he said, Xerox is ''going to have to show that when Star interface was published in 1981 there was a copyright notice published with it,'' "
Your objection is as spurious as Xerox's!
And as you object to Apple, please show us where MS has licensed the technology from Xerox...or is this selective attention of yours just another 'undocumented feature' of Windows? But I just love how the Window's fanboys righteous indignation extends ONLY as far as Apple and not to ALL of the other subsequent users of the GUI. Ooops...
And Xerox's suit went where???
...As far as their own ability to produce a functional commercial interface!
But then you utterly fail to provide details regarding the 'rest of the story'...
Score: -2
|Foxfyre: I was just correcting the facts that were wrong above. I'm not vouching superiority or what company is better than who, it was just a simple "you're information is wrong".
I never made an opinion of any manner, just provided correct information.
YET AGAIN FOXFYRE, your comment is completely irrelevant to mine. Please calm down and don't go out on a tangent because the truth hurts your feelings. :'(
Score: 0
|do you have any links that prove your "facts"?
Score: 0
|Nickleodeon, you cite 'half' facts as you compound falsehood as you claim to correct 'facts'!. You mention Xerox's suit, but not the findings! Ooops! Now why would that be pertinent???
And while you claim to cite facts, they are ONLY oriented at one player among many who are equally, (if not more guilty as based upon precedent, as they should have been even more aware of the infringement!!!)
Next time you claim to cite facts, TRY to make complete statements instead of your myopic selective attention!
But then, when was the last time you posted regarding MS's Windows, or Linux, or any other GUIed environment infringing on other's rights for utilizing a GUI without paying royalties?
The silence is deafening.
Score: -3
|I posted a link to a New York Times article from 1989 which explains the series of events that I mentioned and as they were described to me by my professors.
My information may be blunt, but it is simply true.
1. Xerox did attempt to sue Apple.
2. Steve Jobs didn't originally pay Xerox for the GUI. (I'm not saying he should be paying for it either.)
Why are all you Mac Fanboys getting so upset? I'm only relaying information as truthfully as possible, but I'm somehow an enemy of Apple? Can you criticize me for being honest? If I posted incorrect information, prove to me that it is indeed incorrect - don't go on some lyrical jabber for 5 paragraphs which try to make me dishonest.
Whatever you mean by "half-facts", they are still facts that falsify the original posters, which was my point.
You're arguments aren't proving anything to me or many readers here.
EDIT:
I DO NOT criticise Apple for borrowing ideas, I do critcise them for borrowing the idea and then attempting to sue microsoft and HP for borrowing the same idea. Hypocritical and demented. *facepalm*
Score: 0
|nicklozon. you said it loud and clear. They simply can't read what you are saying. In reply to the incorrect things that were being said.
Score: 0
|Mac fanboy? LMAO!
Yup. I have been MUCH louder than you in criticizing their strategy and their products from a substantive point of view than you have. And yet you call me a fanboy! Good call Nimrod!
Apple is NO MORE to blame for using a GUI than any other company who has done so. If you want to cite one for failure to provide adequate compensation, cite them all. as simply being the 2nd, 3rd, or 4th does not in any way minimize their culpability.
And to think, the others didn't even buy any stock!
Your selective atention is amazing. Especially as you whine so voraciously as you attempt to defend your myopic focus on just who is justified in utilizing an idea that they then dev4eloped that they had simply observed.
And just what happened to Xerox's suit that you so loudly proclaim was brought against Apple? You know, the one you cited from a 20 year old NWTimes post? Or does your notion of research only extend to reporting one half of the issue - as it does in chastising Apple for their purchase of stock not being sufficient to justify their use of a GUI? And funny how no other parties are liable for doing the same thing? Hmmm?
So tell us, Mister Objective, what happened to Xerox's suit? Is it that you don't know, or that you just won't say, as it makes your initial fair and objective observation a bit vacuous?
Rather like your objection to Apple using a GUI as you object to "other's posts" as you myopically ignore the "others' posts" who attack Apple and laud MS uses of the GUI?
The fact is, Apple did introduce the first commercially viable and successful GUI. And all since have fallen over themselves to copy it without compensation as well. Well, perhaps except Linux, where they have instead fallen over themselves in their lofty efforts to copy the Windows copy of the Apple GUI.
If one is guilty of inappropriately using the GUI, seeing as how NONE of the players have 'adequately' compensated the nitwits at Xerox, none of the firms is more liable than the other and all share in the blame is there is one to be levied.
The irony is that in the middle of an Apple/MS flame war, you pretend to trot out and simply offer a few facts regarding Apple as you completely ignore MS's use of the technology without adequate compensation as well. Especially after MS unsuccessfully tried to license the MacOS as well!
If you want to present a case, present the ENTIRE case, not just your myopic one sided presentation posited as a fair and balanced objective accounting, Nimrod!
Score: -2
|Foxfyre, you sir are an idiot.
"So tell us, Mister Objective, what happened to Xerox's suit? Is it that you don't know, or that you just won't say, as it makes your initial fair and objective observation a bit vacuous?" - I don't CARE what happened to the suit...MY ENTIRE POINT IS THAT THERE WAS A COURT CASE PENDING AGAINST APPLE FROM XEROX. MY POINT AND ONLY POINT...
Just because my attention does not critique every aspect of the findings of some damn court case, does not mean I'm "myopic" or judgemental...try to cover up something for MS? Where do you get this crap from?
"Apple is NO MORE to blame for using a GUI than any other company who has done so" - I never once disagreed with this, did you even READ my post?
My "selective attention" is not SELECTIVE...its limited to the scope of the original posters incorrect facts.
"What happened to Xerox's suit?" - I ... DONT ... CARE ... it was just a fact.
"If one is guilty of inappropriately using the GUI..." I NEVER SAID ANYONE WAS GUILTY, again, did you even read my post?
"...you pretend to trot out and simply offer a few facts regarding Apple as you completely ignore MS's use of the technology ..." - Correct me if I'm wrong ... BUT THIS ENTIRE THREAD WAS BASED ON A MAC ARTICLE AND I WAS REPLYING TO MAC COMMENTS.
You keep using the word "CASE" ... there was no "CASE" ... only a simple correction of data.
Again, you sir are an idiot.
Score: 1
|Life Is Confusing using Vista.™
Score: 0
|Let's face it, the backwards, upside down Mac GUI better known as Windows would not exist were it not for the Mac. Windows Vista and Windows 7? Yup, inspired by good old Mac OS X. Steve Jobs and Apple introduced the GUI in personal computing. Without Apple you PC guys would still be using DOS. LOL
Life Is Good On A Mac.™
Score: -6
|Yep. Apple introduced the GUI on the desktop and Microsoft made it better. Microsoft is the reason the personal computer still exists outside of the business world.
Score: -1
|Crap has also brought ignorant morons like you in this world.
Score: -1
|This comment is pretty pointless as you'll ignore it anyway, but seeing as I'm bored:
Without Microsoft there wouldn't be a computer in everyone's home. Without computers in everyone's home there wouldn't be the demand for the internet that there currently is. Without the demand for the internet there would be fewer resources available to find interesting information of subject and to keep up to date with news etc.
Without a computer in everyone's home there would be less demand for Computer Scientists and the like. Without that demand there would be fewer employed people. With fewer employed people the greater the burden on the economy and so on.
It all has a knock on effect.
Frankly, without Microsoft Apple wouldn't exist in its current form. Probably a bit vice versa also.
Score: 1
|Without Commodore and Chuck Peddle, you Apple guys would still be building hobby computers in your garage.
Score: 0
|Poor Dammit...
And its idiots like yourself who perpetuate this kind of nonsense.
Yup, it was ONLY by the shear force of MS's will that computers succeeded! Without MS, computers would have just withered away.
Sit down and go back to playing with Mario instead of yourself for a while, Gameboy.
And Paul...yup. computer science exists solely driven by your desktop, right?
Funny, there was a thriving ENTERPRISE computing environment BEFORE the PC, and this would have only grown regardless of your kludgy DOS and, well, DOS, as MS at the time saw no need for a GUI - as well as so many DOS folks who openly derided a GUI as being for kids - you know, the SAME idiots who also deride UNIX.
One might concluded that ignorance is indeed bliss, except that so many of the Windows fanboys seem so preoccupied with denouncing anything Mac/Apple. Relax and be content to think that MS invented the world. Why do you even care or post in non-Windows threads - as according to you folks, they don't matter anyway?
And after all of the angst and pathos, which platform initiated trends still in evidence today? Who adapted their interface and IO?
Funny, I don't see green/grayscreen commandline, ROM on top of RAM, disk based NetBIOS OSes dominating. Yup, that DOS sure was innovative! Everyone is falling over themselves to copy it. Yup, EVERYONE is copying MS!
Score: -3
|And yup, the Commodore 64 is where now?
The Apple II just couldn't keep up could it? Rather, the Apple II was the machine folks aspired to as they settled on the Commodore simply due to its lower cost at the time!
Score: -4
|And its better games :)
Score: 0
|"The Apple II just couldn't keep up could it?"
No... and for the very reason you stated, 'Professor'!
Yup, people certainly "settled" on the most popular and highest selling home computer of all time!
The Commodore 64 was the system people aspired to *because* it was a better machine at a fraction of the cost, as sales proved. To suggest otherwise is purely delusional speculation on your part... oh but that can't be, as we all know how much you claim to detest that. LOL
Talk about selective attention... choosing to ignore the true pioneers of home personal computing. Because they simply are not around anymore says nothing of their accomplishments during their prime (including MOS Technologies' contributions to the industry), and mentioning it speaks volumes about your (lack of) knowledge of their downfall.
The fact that Commodore is no longer around does not invalidate Ryusennin's statement... but I would expect nothing less from someone who automatically assumes that the only thing Commodore ever had to offer was the C=64. LOL
Anything else you just have to be 'right' about?
Score: 0
|Sorry genius, while the Commodore prepped a few for what was to come in the form of CPM and DOS, not only was the Commodore 64 ultimately a failure, but the Apple II lead folks directly to the Mac and provided a path for the geeks who made the Apple II the success it was - as well as an almost 20 year lifespan.
Just how long was your Commodore around?
And all that despite its costing more than the Commodore. Go figure...
Or are you going to cite the Timex Sinclair as being superior to both as it was cheaper than both as well? lol!
And the Apple II also had the ability for user enhanced IO development and seven Apple II Bus slots (50-pin card-edge) and an Auxiliary slot (60-pin card-edge).
Something of which the Commodore never even dreamed.
Score: -3
|Predictable... you never disappoint!
How long was *my* Commodore around? 1982-present day, champ... seeing as how all of my C64s and C128s still work perfectly to this day.
You make repeated claims not to be an Apple fanboy, yet you prattle on as one of their ordained most of the time... as you are now. Perhaps you have a different definition of the term "fanboy" that the rest of us are not aware of.
"CPM"? WTH are you talking about now? The C128 / C128D added the ability to use 80-column CP/M, not the C64. "Prepped a few", huh? You're utterly clueless. The C128 / C128D was undeniably the most versatile 8-bit computer ever made, and was also the best selling CP/M-capable system ever, despite hardly anyone ever actually using that capability. However, it was introduced in the mid-eighties, and was Commodore's first system to offer CP/M support. Combined with the fact that CP/M was practically dead by that time (mainly because of MS-DOS), I would love to know how Commodore "prepped" anyone to use an OS that was already almost a decade old and on its way out the door, "genius"?
It's quite obvious that you know little to nothing about Commodore, their history, the pioneers responsible for the explosive success that the Commodore 64 alone was (and still is in certain geek circles, more so than your Apple II), or the influence they had on the rest of the industry (particularly the home computing market), and pop culture, still today.
That's not even mentioning the tremendous impact MOS Technologies (yep, Commodore) had on the industry at a time when the likes of Motorola were still charging exorbitant prices for their current processors... until a little-known semiconductor company in the mid-seventies entered the fray with a $25 processor that had everyone (Apple included) scratching their heads and whispering "WTF?" to each other. That same day, other vendors promptly lowered their prices... while the trade show was still underway! Might as well credit the following years of continued downward-price pressure to Commodore, too.
It's laughable that one who claims to know so much (based on previous diatribes) about business and marketing strategy utterly fails to recognize what made Commodore so successful in the first place. Everything was designed, developed, tested, manufactured, and distributed in-house... one of the benefits of having their very own semiconductor company. There's a reason their products were inexpensive, professor! They controlled their own supply of parts and processors, and tried desperately to rely on no one else for them. And their low prices allowed Commodore to succeed in their main goal at that time: effortlessly driving out most every single one of their competitors, with the exception of a very small handful, one of which was Apple (who ironically tried to sell the Apple II to Commodore and even entertained the notion of a merger). Who'd-a-thunk it? The main reason the deal fell through was because Wozniak and Jobs were asking for too much (gee, that sounds familiar)... that, and the fact that Jack Tramiel did not see Apple as a threat (probably one of Tramiel's biggest mistakes). But you know what? At the time, they certainly were not!
Sinclairs? You're hilarious! They were using those as doorstops at Commodore, thanks to the $100 trade-in offer for customers if they sent in their old systems... a brilliant move which succeeded in getting thousands of competitor's systems off the streets and into warehouses.
Yep, MOS... and Chuck Peddle, the man responsible for basically changing the face of the industry at that time, and considered by many (who choose not to remain as blissfully ignorant of his contributions as yourself) as the 'Father of the Personal Computer'. And who was one of their biggest customers at the time? Oops... Apple! Yep, they used that lowly little 6502 processor (the one that Byte magazine named as one of the 20 most important computer chips ever). Not quite the improved 6510 that the C64 used (which added an integrated I/O port), but still... That kinda brings us back around to the OP's statement from earlier:
(and take it slow this time)
Apple without Commodore / MOS / Chuck Peddle would definitely not be the same Apple today, and most likely the Apple II would not have even existed (at the very least, arrived too late in the game to even matter). Apple owes its much (if not all) of its success in its early days to the very existence of the aforementioned, since the Apple II was as instrumental in that process as you state. It was indeed a very accurate statement. Accept it, deal with it. To believe otherwise is to pretend that IBM would have been just as successful with their Personal Computer without Intel.
That was the entire point, nimrod, and one that you chose to gracefully sidestep, ignore, or quite simply didn't get.
And expansion slots? Those were added to bring the functionality of the Apple II up to par with other computers of that era (similar to the overpriced / underfeatured models of today... some things never change). Care to name any significant common expansion cards that were actually worth a damn that added functionality to the Apple II that wasn't already built-in to the Commodore 64 (or easily added via the only expansion port that was deemed necessary)? Oops, almost forgot about all those extremely popular Z80 add-on cards for those droves of CP/M users. My mistake. LOL!
Never mind the C128, which easily outclassed the Apple II line... until the arrival of the Amiga, which utterly mopped the floor with anything Apple (or anyone else) had to offer, utilizing custom hardware that was far ahead of its time, and an extremely elegant and efficient OS (which is STILL being developed) to take advantage of it all.
Apple made computers for the classes. Commodore made computers for the masses.
Might I suggest reading "On The Edge: The Spectacular Rise and Fall of Commodore" to perhaps enlighten you on part of the reason for *your* Apple's success.
Score: -1
|The mouse was really the magic bullet for Apple. They were including it before anyone else that I can think of. Other than that...well, I never found any of the early Apple machines very compelling. They were underpowered and overpriced for their capabilities, something that still holds true. Before Windows you had almost none of the driver nightmares that plague us to this very day..you either knew what you were doing and could make it work, or you hired somebody who did. Thus, from my perspective, PCs and other home computers (Atari XL series, woot) were superior in every way. The single exception was in graphic design: that magical mouse on the ol' IIe could let me crank out blocky drawings on a Scibe pretty effectively. Another thing I never understood was why Apple versions of software titles always cost more than they did on C-64, IBM or Atari, but the hurdles placed in the way of developers might explain that somewhat. I remember being in high school and dreaming about Commodore and Atari merging to create the ultimate home computer. I suppose the ST fulfilled that dream to a degree, but the inept marketing of that system insured the PC would soon reign supreme. Being only a little younger than Mr. Fulton I can affirm his glowing reminiscence about the "good ol' days". Every month brought new breakthroughs and more computing power for crazy kids to dive into. One of my fondest memories was seeing over 30 users of my best friend's BBS show up for a gathering at the local library. PTA meetings didn't get that kind of crowd. With nothing to guide us but sheer gumption we'd built networked DOS machines with multiple nodes, and people had actually noticed. What amazing times.
Score: 2
|Certainly, the Mac was the first consumer-grade computer (the Lisa doesn't count -- it cost $9,999) to include a mouse as standard equipment. But the first platform where developers actively experimented with attaching a mouse and building software around it, was...[drumroll]...the Apple II.
That said, certainly the most well-designed and well-executed home computer prior to 1984 was the Atari 800. (I say this with complete and utter bias, as Contributing Editor to ANALOG Computing for about four years.) In the midst of the glory days, those of us who programmed for multiple platforms (including the Atari 8-bit) carried with us a kind of "bible," published by a guy I was proud to later call "colleague," named Ian Chadwick, called "Mapping the Atari."
Now, this is actually in response to your comment about the device driver nightmare. Back before there were device drivers, "Mapping the Atari" told you everything you'd ever want or need to know about making the 8-bit do stuff. For instance, I created a program that hid a monochrome high-resolution image in the 8K of unused RAM left vacant by the right ROM cartridge that no one ever used -- that location was in Chadwick's map. Doing a couple of POKEs, I could reset the GRAPHICS 8 memory pointer to the top of the right cartridge ROM, to produce an instant graphics page. And I could plot to that area faster than I could plot to the screen, so I had a pretty decent routine going that would flip between the main display and the "damage control" monitor. Just the page flip made people whistle in awe.
Point is: In the early days of microcomputer programming, most anything you wanted to accomplish could be done with maybe a few days of trial and error, and maybe one indispensable book. Despite how powerful machines have become, only in recent years has there been any serious effort in trying to evolve the programming model to be as efficient, powerful, and _direct_ as the BASIC interpreters of old.
And oh yes, the crowds were pretty nice, too.
-DF "Nice to Haul Out the Old Vernacular Every So Often" Scott
Score: 0
|"They were underpowered and overpriced for their capabilities, something that still holds true."
Complete and utter Nonsense. Then AND now.
Score: -4
|I was unemployed during the Fall of 1983. For fun I wandered into a computer store and saw the Lisa. Having nothing else to do I began playing with it. The store employees didn't mind, especially when people gathered around while I was busy figuring out the drawing application. It was fascinating drawing the marqee box with an inscribed circle or oval moving inside. Then applying the plaid texture.
I feel guilty that I don't even fire up MS Draw, which can now do far more. We get spoiled so easily.
Score: 1
|Wonderful story. I love the mention of the Atari 800. The Atari 800XL was my first computer - I was 5-7, I can't remember. The cartridge games were okay, but my dad (who knew nothing of electronics much less computers) watched as I opened it for Christmas, and eagerly awaited the moment I made it did something spectacular. I guess in his eyes, that moment never really came, but after playing around with BASIC, I did manage to imitate a pitcher tossing a fast ball, and a batter nailing the homerun, albeit in square blocks :D
Score: 1
|I had a 600XL and an 800XL. This is where I taught myself basic. I always thought the graphics were better than on the Apple. In fact, I even found an anitmated program on a BBS that had an Atari logo smashing an Apple into "sauce."
I still have the 800XL and a touch drawing pad. I don't fire up the 300 or 2400 baud modems anymore.
Score: 0
|