The Macintosh Is Dead

hexstar

Registered
Kind of a dark article that in some ways is true... :(

http://lowendmac.com/thomas/07/0119.html said:
The Macintosh Is Dead

Tommy Thomas - 2007.01.19

Bong! . . . :) . . . Welcome to Macintosh!

With a bold new year, I felt it would be appropriate to start off this article of the year with a bold statement: The Mac is Dead! Yep, you heard right, The Mac is dead.

I'm sure that raised an eyebrow or two - or maybe a couple hundred. I can hear everyone already saying, "You moron! The Mac is here, stronger than ever! What are you smokin'?"

Before the jury of Mac fanatics imposes a guilty sentence on me for uttering such inflammatory words, I'd like to explain why said this. The Mac is dead in the traditional sense of the word. The Mac of today is a watered down shell in many ways compared to what the true Macintosh is.

Let me be clear - I have great respect for Apple. I like Apple. I appreciate everything they've done for the computer industry. Their innovations, their ease-of-use, and the quality that goes into their software is unmatched. No one in the computer industry has done what Apple has done.

My intent behind this article is not to anger the Apple faithful, because I believe in what Apple stands for. I just happen to not agree with everything they do. With that out of the way....

First there was the machine that started it all, the Apple I. Then came arguably the most successful Apple computer line to date, the Apple II. Next up were two lines that ultimately flopped, the Apple III and the Lisa.
The Mac Was Different

The MacintoshAlong comes 1984, a year we would be introduced to what would ultimately be deemed the flagship Apple product line for the next 20+ years, the Macintosh.

The Macintosh started life as a neat little box, more of an appliance than a typical computer. With it's 9" black and white 512 x 342 resolution screen, 128 KB of memory along with a 400 KB floppy drive - but most of all, the first affordable GUI system ever released - it cemented the Mac's place in computing history. The Lisa, although equally as revolutionary, was hardly affordable, selling for a startling US$10,000.

Through the first few models, the Mac grew and evolved. The modem and printer ports would be a permanent fixture until 1998, when the iMac replaced them with USB. When the Mac Plus was introduced in 1986, it introduced another mainstay of the Mac, and the external SCSI port also remained until 1998. With the Mac SE and Mac II in 1987, ADB would replace the RJ-11 keyboard and external mouse port. ADB lingered on until 1999.

Networking capabilities consisting of LocalTalk/AppleTalk would also be a mainstay for many years, eventually displaced by ethernet. Along the way, the ability to power up the Mac with the keyboard was added. Other hardware technologies that made the Mac stand apart, such as NuBus expansion slots, also added to the Mac's identity.
Out with Mac Distinctives

In the mid-90s, the Mac started undergoing a hardware transformation. While practical (and some would argue much needed), it would eventually start to strip the Mac of it's identity.

A PC standard technology was adopted, and PCI expansion slots replaced NuBus. IDE hard drives and CD-ROM drives were introduced, slowly replacing SCSI.

In 1998, the Mac underwent even more PC-fication when the iMac was introduced. The floppy drive, gone. ADB, gone. Modem and printer ports, gone. SCSI ports, gone.

What replaced them? In the case of the floppy drive, nothing. (I feel Apple did the smart thing in doing away with the floppy drive.) USB and later FireWire would replace ADB, modem, printer and SCSI ports.

USB was an innovation of guess who? A group of seven companies - Compaq, Digital Equipment Corporation, IBM, Intel, Microsoft, NEC, and Northern Telecom - that made Windows PCs.

FireWire was initiated by Apple, and its co-developers included Texas Instruments, Sony, Digital Equipment Corporation, IBM, and SGS Thomson. Although invented by Apple, these days FireWire seems to be getting the shaft in favor of USB.

ADB would hang on in some Mac models until late 1999, when the Blue & White G3 was discontinued.

As if all of that weren't enough, the ability to start the Mac with a power key on the keyboard was taken away by 2000.

The last thing hardware-wise that remained unique was the Mac's PowerPC processor. In 2006, gone.

In terms of hardware, the Mac has essentially become a PC.
The Mac OS on PC Hardware

I think some of these changes were necessary, so I'm not going to lament all of them. I can even deal with some of the ones I felt weren't necessary.

Even if you look past the hardware, and instead look at the software side, where the Mac's true identity lies, you'll find Apple stripped the Mac of its identity even further.

We can safely say that OS X was a necessary change. The problem with this is Apple felt they had to reinvent the wheel. The user interface in OS X isn't as consistent as the Classic Mac OS was. Sure, Aqua's cool, and OS X is built on Unix (a solid foundation!).

OS X is easier to use in a lot of ways, but they forgot Classic Mac OS users out when Apple went Intel. They forgot what had originally made the Mac the Mac.

The Application Menu on the right side, gone. The Apple menu is still around, but it's not nearly as useful as it once was. The Dock is a mixed bag. While it's useful, it can be a pain in the rump roast for switching between applications.

And let's not forget something that truly made the Mac great and it's often one of the most overlooked parts of the Mac experience, the Happy Mac. Since Jaguar, the Happy Mac that once greeted Mac users, inviting them into the Mac experience, was replaced with an Apple logo. A dull, gray, Apple logo. Oh the horror!

Susan Kare's simple, wonderful, and most of all beloved addition to Andy Hertzfeld's Mac ROM, the Happy Mac, doesn't exist in modern Macs.

I can hear the complaints already: "You're being silly. You're nitpicking. What makes the Mac is the OS and design of the Mac."

No nitpicking here, just tellin' it like it is.

Just so you'll know, I know many of these things that have been removed from the Mac can be brought back through haxies. Even the Happy Mac can be added back on the PowerPC models - with a promise of software on the Intel side to bring it there as well.

But come on, why should we have to put back what Apple shouldn't have taken out in the first place?

The Mac is no longer the Mac in my eyes. It's more like Coca-Cola is today. The cans say Coca-Cola Classic, but Classic it ain't. It doesn't have the fizz it once had.

We still have the bong sound on the Mac (affectionately known as the chord), but how much longer will it last?

I can hear more comments: "The Mac has evolved; it can't stay the same forever." But the Mac hasn't evolved overall. Yes, it's evolved OS-wise, but when it comes to the charm and the magic of the Mac, it hasn't progressed. It has instead regressed and evaporated.

On the hardware end, the Mac has conformed to the PC "standard". Wasn't it Steve Jobs who said, "It's better to be a pirate than to join the Navy"? Well my friends, Apple has joined the Navy.

Apple's old slogan used to speak volumes when it came to the Mac and people who used it, "Think Different". Apple is no longer thinking different.

Perhaps the move to PC hardware was a necessary and practical evil, but still....

Sure, OS X is cool and easy to use, and the designs of the hardware are pleasing to the eye, but that's all the difference you'll see now.

Keep in mind, I'm not blasting Apple entirely. I love OS X for the most part. Apple is still great at making "insanely great" software and designing hardware that's sure to draw oohs and ahhs. However, I don't believe they should be calling these things Macs when it's painfully obvious that the things that used to make up the Mac are gone.

The real Macintosh is dead.
Time for a New Name

Which leads me to this thought: I think it's time for Apple to retire the Macintosh and start a new product line. If you think about it, it's been long since time for another major computer product line. The Mac line has been around for 23 years.

The machine Apple calls now the Mac is nowhere near what the Mac once was in many ways, so they need to call it something entirely different. Just think about it - a new machine for a new generation of Apple faithful.

Apple's gotten big with name changes. While the Intel switch was underway, they did away with the iBook, PowerBook, and Power Mac names. I think it's time for a bold change. A new Apple computer line for a new generation of Apple faithful.

Please Apple, let Jef Raskin's (considered the "Father of the Macintosh" by many) baby go out with dignity. I'm "Thinking Different."

To put this in perspective - to mimic the words of Steve Jobs when he announced dropping the "Computer" part from Apple's name - I say this. From this day forward, I've made a decision. I'm dropping any reference to Macintosh or the Mac when referring to today's Apple computers to reflect the direction the company is taking.

May the true Macintosh rest in peace.
 
They did change it. you haven't been able to buy a Macintosh since 1999.

the computers apple sell now are all called 'Mac'

Brands take years to become what they are, unless something miraculous happens. you should never kill a popular brand unless you have to.
 
They have their opinions, you could argue that the Mac/intosh has changed over time, but I read less articles from LEM after they had a few about the author's beloved Thinkpad..
 
The author makes a few mistakes. Some I can't leave uncommented. "In 1998, the Mac underwent even more PC-fication when the iMac was introduced. The floppy drive, gone. ADB, gone. Modem and printer ports, gone. SCSI ports, gone." - The whole article has a focus-mistake. While praising additions like ADB and SCSI (quite certainly no features of the one and only original Mac), other changes are seen as "bad" or even "evil" as in this case, where it's dubbed "PC-fication". This particular passage is so wrong that I'd actually like to yell my answer into the left ear of the author. Physically, I mean. My answer is this: Removing the floppy-drive and replacing modem-/printer-/SCSI- etc. ports with USB (and adding FireWire later on) was a (r)evolutionary step not reproduced my many PC-makers until today! They _still_ sport PS/2 ports and parallel ports and serial ports, however unnecessary these are today! If _anything_, the big step the iMac was and the big forthcoming steps it rang a bell for, is what the Mac is all _about_. If you listen to Steve Wozniak (and there are quite a few interviews and documentary footage to be found on the 'net), you'll hear that one of his best qualities was to take a given design, build the same features with less material and later find out that some features his new design had weren't actually in the original. It's all about reducing complexity in setup and evolving the featureset at the same time.

The guy should buy a Mac Classic, install System 6.0.8 along with Brickles and shut up. Or, something he and I might prefer: Revisit his writing, critically analyze it, see how wrong he is and remove the article or write a rebuttal on his own.

Grrrr. :)
 
TommyThomas said:
From this day forward, I've made a decision. I'm dropping any reference to Macintosh or the Mac when referring to today's Apple computers...

I give Tommy one week before he accidentally uses the word "Mac" or "Macintosh" in one of his articles to describe a current model Apple computer.

And while the Mac has changed a great deal, I'd hardly believe the Mac's brand identity is tied to a hardware architecture, a type of connection socket, an Apple menu, a smiling mac logo at the startup screen, or a power key on the keyboard. All of these things are just elements, just transitory little milestones in the Mac's evolution.
 
I agree with his main point. I've been saying it since OS X came out. "It's not the Macintosh; it's OS X."

I don't agree with most of his hardware points. IDE, yes — SCSI was superior. It's a shame Apple went with the heard on that one (but maybe they had to). I think the same is true of NuBus (but I wasn't such a geek back then, so I could be wrong). But USB? Hell no. USB was just what the doctor ordered. It was the best technology at the time, and while it was created by Intel, it wasn't really a "PC" thing. It was the iMac that really catapulted it into prominence in the first place. And dropping floppies was a very un-PC thing!

If you ask me, the original iMac was what the Macintosh was all about. I have more than my share of gripes with Apple, but the CRT iMac just ain't one of them.

I am a little bummed by the marginalization of FireWire, however.

On the software side, I think he's right. OS X lacks both consistency and charm. *sigh*
 
Argh, this is a rather annoying article.

For all the author knows, apple could be putting all those iPod profits away and investing them into creating their own CPU's , Hard drives and 'state of the art' hardware of the future.

I think OSX needs to be sharpened up but come on, we are using a OS thats 5 years ahead of its time. How much more innovation do you need?

200 patients on their latest hardware (iPhone). Hardware innovation anyone?

If apples mac hardware is no different than all the other PC's out there, then why dont they all look as good as a MACINTOSH?

gar!
 
This is one of those dumb articles that makes a bad case trying to point out the obvious. The Mac of today is not the Mac of 20 years ago. but I don't think it's less Mac.

In the someways the Mac of today is more Mac than ever before. An easy to use and understand machine. A machine that is affordable. (relatively of course).

As was pointed out before the iMac led the industry in getting rid of legacy ports. And why would I want a different port? Between firewire and USB all things are covered.

Got to love fluff writing.
 
Come on guys step back and see the forest.

The Mac if not gone, is just a ghost fading into the scenery.

A lot of the changes Apple made with OSX were not only pointless but counter productive and spiteful.

At the heart of the matter is that they killed the intuitivity and rules for user-centric design. Everytime I hunt for a hidden function in OSX or an iLife app or get snared on yet another inconsistency I curse my screen and scream, "Hey, haven't you guys ever used a Mac before?"

The Dock is a very pretty absurdity no more no less.

Steps like bringing out computers, the original iMacs and G4s, with no means of saving or backing up to extractable media other than on another computer which is better equipped, beggars belief.

This is where Macfans get jeered at by PC users who recognise the same frivilous showy design ethic as "Designer" shops full of flashy letter openers and business card holders. Style over substance, where the Mac once had both.

Currently the Mac is being neglected yet again whilst Steve chases another "revolutionary" product, the iPhone and Apple TV, neither of which are in fact that revolutionary, functional or available.

Revolutionary would be Apple putting the polish back into OSX and its iLife products that once were in MacOS and the software built for it. I'm not holding my breath though, I think Apple has progressively lost interest in the product line that now makes up less than half of its income stream.

To sum it up when Apple turned to OSX it also turned to the "Springfield monorail", the cliched "future" from the past. It is still the unfriendly OS under the "friendly" coat of paint. It didn't help that the NEXT paperhangers didn't have their hearts in the redecoration job.
 
Currently the Mac is being neglected yet again whilst Steve chases another "revolutionary" product, the iPhone and Apple TV, neither of which are in fact that revolutionary, functional or available.

He has a point there you know. The iPhone and Apple TV arent available yet - so actually the only product that _is_ available is the new AirPort. Other than that nothing is out yet.
 
Then again, you don't _really_ believe the Mac's being neglected for, say, the whole year, right?
 
We are only just into February, of course the Mac isn't going to get neglected for the whole year, but that is still to me a lot of delays and missed opportunities.

Rumors suggest the MacPro will get a significant chip upgrade soon, which it needs. It wasn't that significant an upgrade to go from the Quad G5 to the Intel Mac Pro and I have heard a lot of people complaining about stability problems on the Intel machines.

My son and I are really hanging out for an iMac 24" upgrade along with Leopard and iLife 07. A bit of spit and polish, bug fixes and straightened GUI would go a long way to improve the attractiveness of Macs all round. Not to mention the rumored iWork spreadsheet and Mail/calendar servers.
 
Okay, but then we're off-topic now. ;) I agree, though, that they should _finally_ start to update their hardware more often. It's mainly the Mac Pro and the MacBook Pro I'm talking about here, although the other stuff could easily get more frequent updates as well. I've said it a lot in the past: When intel releases a small new step for a processor line, Apple should _simply_ add it to the respective lines. Immediately. They could _keep_ the old products at lower prices, but they _should_ always immediately add the newest processors. If that needs an architectural change, they should be ready with new models when the processors arrive. It's their job, in my opinion.
 
Agreed.

Now that Apple has transitioned to Intel chips, it could move to standardised form factors, like PCs, even if they adopt their own improved versions. That would allow them to sensibly do what you have suggested.

It might let them concentrate better on service access. The on-again-off-again improved accessibility is extremely irritating when you have to service multiple machines like I do. I try to keep all the online manuals and guides I can but Apple screws this up by having bizarre, inconsistent and multiple naming for models. I am hardly ever certain I am dealing with the same model as the written material.

I am no doubt telling Apple how to suck eggs but I'd chart out all the points they can gain a competitive edge:

1. Easy access

2. Standardisation of parts and fixings

3. Interoperability

4. Standardisation of form factors (The Apple TV for example is a different size to nearly all Hi-Fi components and is oddly different to the Mac mini)

5. Consider how peripherals bought at different times fit together in size, style and finish. The vaunted superior Apple style mostly ends up looking like a Chinese laundry basket

6. Use flat tops on everything. Sitting external drives on top of G4/G5/MacPros is awkward at best. The slight curvature in surfaces and the handles get in the way.

7. The Mac desktop and iLife software GUI need to be kept consistent over time. Currently there are too many finishes and implementations. Access to interface elements is in odd places or via concealed keyboard commands which are accidentally triggered, leaving the user chasing the problem and method of correcting it.

Basically consistency, functionality and streamlining are the ways to boost OSX productivity. Higher productivity with good quality training material are strong selling points, achieved for little expenditure.
 
The writer's of the articles at Low End Mac have lost it recently. I remember reading the "It's time to let go of the old and embrace the new Mac" a couple months ago. Now the Macintosh is declared dead by another writer. These are mixed signals and cannot be good for the people who are looking for a bargain on a iMac Core Duo or a Macbook. If anything it is promoting buying an older Macintosh that will not be able to handle the same applications and games people buy today. Anything that is Pre-G3 will simply not do it for most customers.

I think the writer is complaining about things that had to change. He also doesn't think about those qualities that define the Mac. The one button mouse, the all in one computer, embrace the standards and create new ones, and it is the only computer where the company makes the operating system with the hardware.

People have always complained about the Mac's one button mouse. Then people thought the iMac was getting old and we needed a Mini-Tower for upgrades. Now people have a theory that Apple is going to switch to Windows and dump the Mac OS. These kind of people make the Macintosh dead. It is actually quite lively.
 
IMO most of his points are wrong. He seems to think that the Mac should just stay exactly the way it was back then. If that happened, no one would be using Macs right now. People are switching to Macs because of the way the OS is now, not how it was.

I don't see why it matters what the internal hardware is. The MBP I'm using right now is almost identical to my dad's Powerbook but much much faster and brighter screen. Other than that and a few minor cosmetic differences it's the same Mac.

There wasn't any reason to stay with SCSI. It was way more expensive and still is. Sure it was faster but for what most people do it's better to have a cheaper slightly slower drive than a screaming fast drive that costs 2 times as much. If you really need SCSI you probably want to be using a Mac Pro anyways for the speed so you will have the option of SCSI drives there.

I think the non-standardized form factors are good for Apple and Macs. When you see a Mac you instantly know it's a Mac. When you see some other computer you most likely don't know what it is unless you see the logo.
 
what gets me is that all my experiences of <OS9 were not very fun. like if you applied a particularly large filter in photoshop, the whole computer would die, taking down anything you had open in quark and illustrator with it, in a way the was so abrupt that steve would say, 'boom'.

for all of the nostalgia, co-operative multitasking was the worst thing, and as a result, i feel no nostalgia toward os9 at all. may it rest in peace.
 
what gets me is that all my experiences of <OS9 were not very fun. like if you applied a particularly large filter in photoshop, the whole computer would die, taking down anything you had open in quark and illustrator with it, in a way the was so abrupt that steve would say, 'boom'.

for all of the nostalgia, co-operative multitasking was the worst thing, and as a result, i feel no nostalgia toward os9 at all. may it rest in peace.

I think you're missing the point. Of course OS X is technologically superior to OS 9. Nobody's saying otherwise. Obviously, I use OS X. I could've bought a used G4 tower and used OS 9, but I didn't. OS X my platform of choice. Time marches on, and it's the best OS available.

However, I still think the Classic Mac OS was better for its time, and in the ways that matter most to me: style, consistency, usability. The technological side of things is big enough to make me use OS X instead — like you, I'd hate to give up preemptive multitasking — but it's a damn shame I need to make that compromise. Apple had something important in the classic Mac OS, and they lost it. Worse yet, they don't seem to care. That's the point.

Lots of people these days know more about gravity than Isaac Newton. That doesn't make them smarter than he was. Different times call for different standards.
 
I think the non-standardized form factors are good for Apple and Macs. When you see a Mac you instantly know it's a Mac. When you see some other computer you most likely don't know what it is unless you see the logo.

EXACTLY!!!!!! Thats wat makes the Mac different. You know its one from far away, because it looks so different compared to diff. computers. Eg., there is a shop in Vienna called "Made by You". They have pots, plates and everything. Then you can buy them and colour them. They have an iMac G4 at the reception and everyone is like: "Look, thats a Mac!"
 
I might be mistaking, but were points like "constant short term hardware upgrades" a long time argument for Macs? I mean, if Apple would update it's hardware line every three or four months, I guess people would feel kinda "betrayed", as it is almost always like "Darn, I just bought a new machine, and for the same buck I could have had a better revised machine". I think the update cycle is ok IMO.

The comments here that OS X is not a convinient OS to use is something I can no understand. I personally find it well designed and have next to no problems finidng features, functions etc.

Regarding the article: the guy's an idiot. :)
 
Back
Top