5 ms·

> The original Macintosh was a huge failure. Really slow, 128K of RAM, and no hard disk. When I was 12 in December 1984, this was my family's first computer (a

> The original Macintosh was a huge failure. Really slow, 128K of RAM, and no hard disk. When I was 12 in December 1984, this was my family's first computer (at a time when every kid in the entire neighborhood seemingly had a Commodore 64, Apple II or IBM PC). With absolutely no overstatement, it was definitely one of the single most important events to ever happen in my entire life, as I had never had my mind blown in such spectacular fashion before (hint: I'm a programmer now who enjoys UI design). To put things in perspective, this was the computer I was most familiar with prior to the Mac: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commodore_PET https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commodore_PET Prior to the Macintosh, I wanted to be a doctor. After playing around with MacWrite, MacPaint, Microsoft BASIC (including some 4-voice synthesized music generation), some early groundbreaking Macintosh network games such as MazeWars and NetTrek... It was pretty clear to me I wanted to be a programmer, because at the time, all of this was completely amazing and unprecedented. I respectfully submit that I think your measurement of "failure" is flawed.

mynameishere 8y ago
He's obviously talking about business failure. I remember when I first saw a Macintosh. To my childish eyes it was a joke compared to the Apple II because of its laughable screen. Tiny and B&W? What? What the hell were they thinking? I still have no idea, though I realize that's not such a big deal. To my adult eyes it's still a joke compared to the Amiga, but that's another story. I'm still not sure what was supposed to be special about that original Mac. WYSIWYG? I get a squint. The later ones were okay, though expensive.
- yuhong 8y ago
  What is fun is how they raised the list price of a Mac II in late 1988 by ~$1100, and even the IIcx in 1989 was not much cheaper. To their credit, they did release the SE/30 which had the processing power and was even cheaper but still had the same screen.
- pmarreck 8y ago
  I don't know. Perception is a funny thing. The high resolution of the screen made it seem more like paper than any other computer of the time. The Amiga always struck me as "janky". Sure it had color and games, but some kind of magic was missing.
- duskwuff 8y ago
  > Tiny and B&W? Physically small, but much higher resolution. The high-resolution mode of the Apple II was 280x192. The image was much crisper, too, as it didn't have to be passed around as composite video. :)
- icedchai 8y ago
  I had an Amiga in the late 80's. The Mac felt like a joke in comparison. The Amiga OS was much more advanced (true multitasking, shell, etc.), never mind the games. You could even emulate a Mac on an Amiga (using AMax.) There were pirated versions that had the ROMs on disk.
- blihp 8y ago
  Remember, Apple had the market to itself in 1984. The Amiga and Atari ST weren't out until 1985. That said, I'm with you as I was an Apple //e user who jumped to the Amiga 1000 on day 1: it was a decade ahead of anything else at an unbelievable price point. The Mac made no economic sense if you were somewhat technologically savvy in the 80's. But for that first year, the Mac was amazing product that stood alone.

mynameishere 8y ago

He's obviously talking about business failure. I remember when I first saw a Macintosh. To my childish eyes it was a joke compared to the Apple II because of its laughable screen. Tiny and B&W? What? What the hell were they thinking? I still have no idea, though I realize that's not such a big deal. To my adult eyes it's still a joke compared to the Amiga, but that's another story. I'm still not sure what was supposed to be special about that original Mac. WYSIWYG? I get a squint. The later ones were okay, though expensive.

yuhong 8y ago
What is fun is how they raised the list price of a Mac II in late 1988 by ~$1100, and even the IIcx in 1989 was not much cheaper. To their credit, they did release the SE/30 which had the processing power and was even cheaper but still had the same screen.
pmarreck 8y ago
I don't know. Perception is a funny thing. The high resolution of the screen made it seem more like paper than any other computer of the time. The Amiga always struck me as "janky". Sure it had color and games, but some kind of magic was missing.
duskwuff 8y ago
> Tiny and B&W? Physically small, but much higher resolution. The high-resolution mode of the Apple II was 280x192. The image was much crisper, too, as it didn't have to be passed around as composite video. :)
icedchai 8y ago
I had an Amiga in the late 80's. The Mac felt like a joke in comparison. The Amiga OS was much more advanced (true multitasking, shell, etc.), never mind the games. You could even emulate a Mac on an Amiga (using AMax.) There were pirated versions that had the ROMs on disk.
blihp 8y ago
Remember, Apple had the market to itself in 1984. The Amiga and Atari ST weren't out until 1985. That said, I'm with you as I was an Apple //e user who jumped to the Amiga 1000 on day 1: it was a decade ahead of anything else at an unbelievable price point. The Mac made no economic sense if you were somewhat technologically savvy in the 80's. But for that first year, the Mac was amazing product that stood alone.