Introduced by the now famous "1984" advert, directed by Ridley Scott and aired during the third quarter of Super Bowl XVIII on 22 January 1984, the first Macintosh is turning 25 this weekend.The Macintosh, released on 24 January 1984, sold for $2,495 and came with a 9 inch screen in an upright beige case, 128k of RAM, a floppy drive, a keyboard and a single-button mouse. Sales were initially strong, with the Macintosh selling 72,000 units by May 3, 1984. However, sales dropped afterwards and the computer was re-badged as the Macintosh 128K when its successor, the Macintosh 512K, was introduced in September 1984.
While it was not the first commercial computer to include a graphical user interface and mouse, the Macintosh helped to popularise the use of a GUI and mouse. Windows, Microsoft's first operating system with a GUI, did not appear until 1985 and failed to gain much popularity until the release of Windows 3.x in 1990.
Throughout the 1990s, Apple continued to lose market share to IBM PC compatible machines running Windows, although the introduction of the all-in-one iMac in 1998 was the beginning of a resurgence for the Macintosh brand.
Talking to the BBC about the first Macintosh, Mark Hattersley, editor in chief of MacWorld UK said, "It was a hugely popular machine. It took desktop computing away from IBM and back to Apple for a good number of years. It brought the notion of the desktop graphical interface to the mass market."
Finding a working 25-year old Macintosh 128K can be hard now, with many suffering from "bit rot". Fortunately, the National Museum of Computing at Bletchley Park in the UK, has many working Apple computers, some even older than the 25-year old Macintosh, according to director Kevin Murrell.
Apple's "1984" Commercial
Thanks to Bill Gates.
Not quite. Thanks to Apple blackmailing MS legally in 1997 and MS offering to settle.
Thanks Bill
There is no disputing that Apple is a successful company but it should be doing a lot better. By keeping the Mac a closed system they have limited their adoption, something compounded by their lack of budget systems to compete with PCs (regardless of the debate as to whether Macs are overpriced). Perhaps a closed system was justified when viruses ran rampant on Windows due to lax security but not in the era of Vista and free anti-virus - it simply limits innovation and third party support.
Hmm. I can admit that Apple should have been doing better in the decade before this one, but at this moment, they're doing as well as one can hope from a company IMHO.
Well, I guess what I'm saying is basically explained by this graph and the 10 year timeline vs the max timeline
http://finance.google.com/finance?q=aapl%2Cmsft
(and ouch for the finance crisis hitting both companies that hard, looking there)
The problem is that Apple thinks it knows best with its closed platform. They famously tried to force Firewire on people with the early iPods but that failed. Now they're trying to force mini-DisplayPort on people.
The problem is that Apple thinks it knows best with its closed platform. They famously tried to force Firewire on people with the early iPods but that failed. Now they're trying to force mini-DisplayPort on people.
Neither firewire or displayport are closed.
If anything though, firewire 400 > usb 2.0.
Remember that Bill owns part of Apple not the other way around.
I never said they were closed, I said the Mac platform is closed. And Apple had to abandon Firewire for iPods due to their popularity with Windows users where USB was the standard connection type. That's not to say Firewire didn't have its benefits but that doesn't really matter, especially not with USB3 just round the corner and the popularity of USB pensticks.
And secondly, Apple controls mini-DisplayPort; it's licence-free but it's still Apple's attempt to control technology; DisplayPort itself was developed by VESA (a collection of numerous large companies) and is very much more open. Also, even though the licence is free you can only buy the adapter cables from Apple. It's another artificial tie-in like the iTMS.
I thought Apple bought back the $400 million of non-voting shares not too long after the "Microsoft Deal"?
There is no disputing that Apple is a successful company but it should be doing a lot better. By keeping the Mac a closed system they have limited their adoption, something compounded by their lack of budget systems to compete with PCs (regardless of the debate as to whether Macs are overpriced). Perhaps a closed system was justified when viruses ran rampant on Windows due to lax security but not in the era of Vista and free anti-virus - it simply limits innovation and third party support.
+1
Are today Apple PCs can be considered Macintosh?
And yes, they're still Macs.
And it's interesting how the rest of the industry struggles to imitate (often poorly) this "dead" platform.
Last edited by LTD on 23 Jan 2009 - 14:25
30 million is nothing in comparison.
30 million is nothing in comparison.
In comparison, sure. But that doesn't make it less true.
And premium products are always more scarce on the market than the rest. Pricing plays a role in this, obviously.
30 million is nothing in comparison.
In comparison, sure. But that doesn't make it less true.
And premium products are always more scarce on the market than the rest. Pricing plays a role in this, obviously.
"And premium priced products are always more scarce on the market than the rest. Pricing plays a role in this, obviously."
fixed that for ya ; )
Uh. Mac is just short for Macintosh. And they are Macintosh, which is just a brand line a of computers from Apple starting in 1984.
iMacintosh, Macintoshbook, Macintoshbook Pro, Macintosh Pro..
eww.
Personally a little disappointed that Apple have done anything obvious to commemorate this product wise. A 25th anniversary Mac of some sort, a nice little collectors piece, or even an all new Apple Macintosh? Come on Apple! I really hope they release something this year based on that themse!
Shows you how popular they are around here!
I lied! Doesn't Chloe, on Smallville, use a Mac!!
One of these days I may look into one.
Congrats Mac!!
http://pixdaus.com/pics/MC3KUw7uCDtL.jpg
http://paulstamatiou.com/2007/10/17/a-visi...-students-today
You certainly won't find them as POS devices, that's for sure.
That's not entirely true. I've seen original iMacs used as POS terminals at a couple of places (either EB Games or GameStop comes to mind, but I can't be sure).
Have yet to see someone on my campus with one. Not that I'm saying,"HUR MAC SUX" or anything, but just sharing my experience so far.
I know that if you are around a campus like the Arts Institute, that's all they use. I suppose it's just a matter of how many people want one, for what use do they need a computer, and so forth. I wouldn't mind having one myself, but I'm just the kind of guy that likes to fool with different OSes and machines.
Have yet to see someone on my campus with one. Not that I'm saying,"HUR MAC SUX" or anything, but just sharing my experience so far.
you are kidding right? i see Mac almost everyday in my campus.
Have yet to see someone on my campus with one. Not that I'm saying,"HUR MAC SUX" or anything, but just sharing my experience so far.
you are kidding right? i see Mac almost everyday in my campus.
Computer Sci, Egineering and Commerce classes at U of T are full of them. Science as well. Profs have them too, even in the Humanities.
I can attest to this. Relative to computers from manufacturers, Apple machines form an equal population, if not slightly more, than other manufacturers. It's probably thanks to the Campus Computer Shop in the Koffler Centre.
Slightly funny anecdote: One of our profs last year was having a lecture in Con Hall and forgot to shut off his Bluetooth connection on his Macbook. So certain wiseasses in our class 'bluejacked' his laptop with very convincing device names - causing the Powerpoint presentation to fade out six times
http://www.computerhope.com/history/198090.htm
You have your dates wrong. The actual design of the 128k case was not even finalized (for internal tooling) until February 1982.
http://www.folklore.org/StoryView.py?proje...e&detail=medium
There would be no way you'd even have a 512k at that time.
You are 100% wrong. Period. As has been pointed out, your dates are out of sync with known history. For another thing, people didn't start calling Macintosh computers "Mac" until several years after they were released.
Considering that he's talking about 1981, even the Amiga wasn't released yet, and even when it was (several years later) it didn't start out with 512KB of RAM. The VIC 20 was released around that time, but the C64 didn't come out until later either.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macintosh_512K
They also released a 512k model prior to this during the design period. I don't believe a public institution would have been able to get a hold of it, however. These facts are at least according to a podcast by one of the original dev. on the Mac... they could be wrong... it was a bit before my time in technology.
HP, Dell, Toshiba - more of the Upper range Toyota, Honda, Mazda Lines
Acer, Asus, and the rest are compared to the lower toyota, honda lines
hehe
btw.. im a PC user... and not a mac fanboi!!! I appreciate both systems.. its good that we have choice. Imagine how boring this world would be without choice??
HP, Dell, Toshiba - more of the Upper range Toyota, Honda, Mazda Lines
Acer, Asus, and the rest are compared to the lower toyota, honda lines
Umm, part of that is true.
more people drive honda's than mercedes. And honda's cost less too
Also, where does this put custom high-end makers like Falcon NW or Dell owned Alienware? Would you have to consider these computers to be McLaren F1 series territory?
pleaaaase, there some of the best the PC offers in general.
and you got Dell in the UPPER range Toyota? .... if anything it's the opposite.
anyone who builds PC's KNOWS ASUS (in general) is one of the best for motherboards.
Last edited by ThaCrip on 24 Jan 2009 - 06:42
Edit; Just had to
not saying MAC are bad... but when you can get something that's pretty much standard AND cheaper... it's pretty hard to choose a MAC over a PC in general.
They stole key parts from Xerox, now Apple sues everyone else like they invented everything.
So what?
Which specific parts did they steal? As your article points out, copyright protects expression, not ideas.
http://www.folklore.org/StoryView.py?story...nd_Progress.txt
Apple stole absolutely nothing from them.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html...750C0A966958260
No Basis Seen for Suit
Apple, which is based in Cupertino, Calif., said in its motion for dismissal that Xerox had no basis for its suit because Apple was merely asserting its own copyrights and not threatening Xerox's copyrights on the Star.
Apple also replied that while it might have borrowed ideas from Xerox, ideas were not protected by copyrights, only the way the ideas were expressed. Mr. Brown, Apple's attorney, said at the hearing that Xerox's asserting that it had originated the Macintosh was as preposterous as a beaver taking credit for the Hoover Dam.
Judge Walker dismissed two counts relating to Xerox's efforts to get Apple's copyright declared invalid, apparently agreeing with Apple that the proper place for such an action would be the Copyright Office, not the courts. He also dismissed three counts relating to the unfair competition assertions, saying that the lawsuit should really be a copyright infringement case, not an unfair competition case.
In the mid 1980s, Apple considered buying Xerox. But a deal was never reached and Apple instead bought rights to the Alto GUI and adapted it into to a more affordable personal computer, aimed towards the business and education markets. The Apple Macintosh was released in 1984, and was the first personal computer to popularize the GUI and mouse amongst the public.
Last edited by LTD on 23 Jan 2009 - 23:29
Unfortunately we had a real hard time finding decent games for the Mac. Oregon Trail, Number Muncher... they were all for Apple //e. No wonder I switched to PC at such a young age
Apple legally did not steal anything from Xerox.
Xerox management consented to Jobs and others having a three-day full access visit to PARC even after one of the PARC managers complained that Apple would take the concepts that they saw and run with them. Apple paid for this visit quite handsomely. It wasn't free. Jobs liked and was fixated on the concept of the graphical user interface, which by the way is simply a computer science concept and can therefore no more be stolen than the algorithm for hashing can be stolen. Not a single line of Xerox's code for the Alto is or has ever been in the Mac OS, so Apple did nothing more than develop a marketable product using a concept that Xerox allowed them to see.
The whole Apple stole from Xerox schtick is nothing more than a myth. And I really can't speak for the others whom you allege stole from Xerox.
Last edited by LTD on 24 Jan 2009 - 00:27
Happy 25th, Macintosh!
Apple would be a lot more popular today if it had opened their closed system - but perhaps it's content with its 8% and doesn't want more.
Apple would be a lot more popular today if it had opened their closed system - but perhaps it's content with its 8% and doesn't want more.
Opened their closed system = There goes half the reason for owning OS X.
Commenting has either been disabled on this article or you are not logged in. Click here to login or register, its free!
Note: Anonymous commenting is disabled in order to keep the quality of responses to a high standard.