from MacsOnly.com...
The Big Lie: According to this Yahoo news article, IBM/Intel ignited (Apple's word!) the PC revolution. People forget that PC means "personal computer" and Apple started THE PC revolution 3-4 years before the IBM personal computer was released.
http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/20010808/tc/tech_personalcomputers_history_dc_1.html

Is it just me, or does everyone seem to suddenly begin their own 'history of the PC' showing how Apple's lead faded?

Typo note: Title reads "CNET posts histroy of the PC article"

Is that marketshare lead or technological lead?

Just because MSFT is the McDonald's of the OS world doesn't mean Apple should aspire to be like them. Quality requires exclusivity.

I hate it when I hear people saying that Apple should have opened their architecture. From a share-holder's point of view, I wish that they had done that. But from a user's point of view I am far more happy that they did not.

Right now things suck since MSFT controls OS domination but nobody really has hardware domination (unless you think that all x86 PCs are the same thing). Could you imagine how brutal the industry would be if one computer company dictated both OS standards and hardware standards? We would be completely in a strangle-hold. Plus, Apple has always had the best OS. Lately they have had to make dramatic enhancements to it to maintain that lead. Do you ever think that we would see OS X in a world where Apple already owns everything? I doubt it.

I, for one, am glad that Apple did things the way that they did. I have tried to think of how things would have turned out given another sequence of events but it never seems better (for example, I doubt we would have OS X if Jobs never started NeXT).

I just wish that Apple had a little higher market share right now. That would be nice.
~/indigo

We have to deal with annoying SirCam and Code Red nonsense because people in Redmond either overlook the obvious or cannot program.

My DSL router on my X box at home is getting 600 hits a day from moronic code red attempts.

Lovely.

CNet does it again.

Will these clowns ever get it right?

They make no mention of the Commodore Amiga and they only briefly mention the Commodore 64. The C64 had over 50 million units sold!!!! Thats a personal computer revolution.

*sigh*

I got one of those so I could do my Basic homework at home instead of in the lab in ...I'm thinking 82. Is that right? I didn't hink the Com 64 came out until later. Maybe I'm confused. I'm old

I think the Mac community in general could do with a dose of reality. I too spent years spouting the party lines about how much better the Mac OS was. But lets face facts: The Mac OS started falling behind about the time Win 95 came out, and hasn't regained the technological lead yet. Yes 10 could be great, but it isn't yet. Win 2000 is a stable, fast OS, that on my personal computer was up for 4 weeks before i had to reboot it to install a program. I think perhaps the mac community should honestly re-asess it's strengths and weaknesses.

Ha, you sound like a troll that is trying to cover that up by saying we were good.

I think that Win95 was some real competition for Mac OS. However, that is irrelevant (it was 6 years ago). Besides Mac OS 8-9.1 were VERY fast and were stable enough compared to the alternative (if you think that on OS based on the QDOS kernel is stable you need some crazy electoshock therapy).

Most importantly in the present, the Mac represents the freedom of information. Linux represents this, too. In fact, everything but Windows represents this (especially when you factor in XP).

Having to reboot to instal something after a pathetic 4 weeks of uptime is not something to brag about. Until last night I had 73 days of uptime in OS X having installed several pieces of software in that time (both OS X level and Darwin level). The only reason why I rebooted then was because I had to move back home from school. I also ran many things on it the whole time: FTP, SSH, Apache, PHP, MySQL, etc.
Although I will admit that OS X needs some speed enhancements, its stability and UI usability blow Win2K out of the water and XP is even worse (don't bother even mentioning Win9X). Plus, we have better, more efficiently designed hardware. Don't forget that when 10.1 comes out next month, we will be beating you morons in all respects.

If you want to continue this argument, ICQ me at 7027184.

~/indigo

No one seems to be able to post to these message boards without presuposing that Macs are the greatest computers ever. I just think that an honest evaluation of Macs weaknesses would serve it well.

And saying things like OS 8 and 9 were stable doesn't help. They simply aren't. I spent 8 months answering tech support calls at Earthlink, and am now Sys Admin at a company that uses 90% Macs, and compared to NT and 2000 they are as stable as a house of cards.

There are alot of reasons that most of the world uses PCs, perhaps these reasons could be examined instead of dismissed out of hand.