4 ms·
On the one hand, I can't disagree with you, but on the other, it's like saying that Fred Astaire isn't good looking enough to be a movie star.
by parenthesis 5y ago
On the one hand, I can't disagree with you, but on the other, it's like saying that Fred Astaire isn't good looking enough to be a movie star.
- zabzonk 5y agoBut he could dance a little. The original Macs were not really useful at all.
- wwweston 5y agoNews to me as someone who used them to do things as a kid (music sequencing, sound design, software experiments, vector/bitmap art). Modern machines are incredible and do so much more but these were useful in their time.
- zabzonk 5y agoMy comment was on the original Macs - those with almost no memory, one floppy drive, and huge expense.
- technothrasher 5y agoFor me at least, WYSIWYG word processing was the killer app on the original Mac. The 8-bit machines and current DOS machines at the time just couldn’t compare, although windows PCs caught up pretty quickly.
- flenserboy 5y agoThey really didn't catch up until much later, and much of that had to do with printing. Macs produced decent output out of the box — fonts were a focus, and it showed.
- desiarnezjr 5y agoI remember it took years for Windows to catch on - not until Windows 3.0 I'd say, so really a 5+ year gap. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_3.0 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_3.0 There were other graphical desktops like Amiga and Atari ST around that time but nothing on either platforms had the finesse of the early Mac programs (as flawed as they could be).
- JKCalhoun 5y agoI came in on Team Mac Plus and 1 megabyte was adequate. My sense was the 128K Mac and 512 ("FatMac") were rather brief footnotes. Still, college friend got a 128K Mac when they came out (Carnegie Mellon gave them to all the Freshmen?) and MacPaint + ImageWriter had us making our own cassette tape labels.