Is the original Macintosh the greatest computer ever created?

>>58846498
Every computer now is pretty much a Macintosh.

>>58846498
The original Mac.... no. Even at the time it wasn't good. A black and white screen with no ability for expansion and was over priced compared to most of the competition.

File: thatisquiteenoughthankyou.gif (1016KB, 250x333px) Image search: [Google]

1016KB, 250x333px

>>58846819
>with no ability for expansion
I highly doubt that is factual.

>>58846882
It had external ports for modems and printers and whatnot, but no internal slots for hardware like PCs of the period and the Apple II. I should have been more clear.

>>58846962
I understand what you meant now, and I agree with you completely.

s:expansion:upgrading:g

File: Sun_2-50_Front[1].jpg (22KB, 800x605px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 800x605px

>>58846765
Wrong. The standard desktop computer eventually came to resemble early Sun workstations, which were out before the Mac. We have still not really moved beyond this configuration.

No because apple

Correct answer is the PC-98

>>58846498
yes,
reason: as i learned from art history 101, it started a gay computing movement.

File: alan-turing-9512017-1-402.jpg (16KB, 300x300px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 300x300px

>>58847296

>>58846498
>commercial failure
>critical failure
>laughing stock of the personal computer scene of the time
>put in evidence what a hack job was, and got if fired for good from his own company

>>58846498
You spelled Amiga wrong, moron

>>58847857
NOBODY CARES ABOUT YOU.

>>58847946
Whats up with the butthurt?

>>58848584
What the fuck are you on about? We are not talking about Steve Jobs. Gtfo homofag.

File: r85r5614.jpg (1MB, 5275x4119px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 5275x4119px

>>58846498
>poor RAM compliment
>non-existent mass storage options
>no multitasking operating system support
didn't get good until the Plus, hell arguably not until the Mac II turned the platform into a serious contender

>>58846819
you can't really fault the graphics, B&W bitmapped displays were pretty much the standard for graphical systems back then, since the kind of work they were intended to excel at didn't need to be rendered (ruined) in some ugly as sin brightly-colored gimmick palette

the rest is very true though

>>58847021
that's even more ludicrous than the retard you replied to, Sun was a literally who outside of the high-end before the dotcom boom made them big and didn't really stand out to the point of meaningfully impacting consumer systems

Is it true that the Apple III was designed without fans so it would be a shitty computer and people would change to a Mac instead?

>>58849098
not really, it came out three years before even the Lisa and was pretty much dead and buried by the time the Mac hit the shelves

it was designed with no fans because lil' Steve was the Amazing Uncompromising Autist and despised fans in all forms

>>58849098
Jobs hated fans in general, believing they'd be too distracting.

The Apple III's fault was being designed by suits and rushed to market.

>>58846498
That'd be the SE/30

File: snap19.jpg (90KB, 1000x875px) Image search: [Google]

90KB, 1000x875px

Apple IIGS was better. Admittedly, the Macintosh's CPU had a better clock speed, but that's where the pros end. The IIGS could support up to 8MB of RAM while the Macintosh - only 4. The Apple IIGS had a 4000 color display, the Macintosh had a black and white display. The Macintosh had a single voice sound card which couldn't handle music synthesis, while the IIGS had a 32 oscillator sound card which could handle music just fine. The IIGS had 8 expansion sockets, while the Macintosh had none at all.

The IIGS cost only $999 while the Macintosh - $2599, even though the IIGS was released two years later and was marketed parallel to the Macintosh for a long time.

Do the math.

>>58849279
>Do the math.
k

Atari ST or Amiga.

File: r90r1846.jpg (299KB, 2123x1356px) Image search: [Google]

299KB, 2123x1356px

>>58849279
>citing the 4,096 color palette that couldn't be fully utilized in a blatant effort to make the platform out to be more than it really was
please stop using this sleazy tactic, the IIgs could display a maximum of 16 of those colors at a low resolution
color in general wasn't even really a definitive advantage at this time, pre-8bit color was a consumer gimmick and ugly as sin, the costly memory you put towards those 16 obnoxiously bright shades was better spent on upping the resolution or hell even just omitting it and using the money saved elsewhere where it actually mattered

same goes for the sound, that's great if you're playing games or making music, but most macs were designed and put to work for publishing or office work and for those tasks it was just a waste of space

the RAM and expansion are legitimate advantages, but history seems to show that it doesn't matter, if you wanted something modular and expandable, you bought a PC that ripped IIgs shit all day long in that arena, or the Mac II that came out six months later and matched or surpassed pretty much every one of these complaints handily. while it cost more due to the 55-or-die markup bullshit, it wasn't really a problem for the intended market; consumers belonged to IBM and friends now, nothing was ever going to change that

>>58849474
Any number that can be realistically utilized is still better than 2.

>>58849279
Turing machine.

>>58849509
and as I already said; not when it looks like garbage and wastes resources better spent elsewhere
publishers didn't need a couple shit primary colors, they needed resolution and a nice interface

File: ???.jpg (2MB, 3264x2448px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3264x2448px

>>58846498
A macinWHAT?
Steve WHO?

File: !!!.jpg (236KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

236KB, 1024x768px

mactoddlers BTFO

File: 1482897243670.jpg (11KB, 500x265px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 500x265px

>>58849624
>>58849639
>glacial ass and bloat: the computing platform

>>58849474
>lying
For what cause?
Move the goalposts more lad

>>58849731
???

macintosh 128k - amiga a1000
jan 1984 - jul 1985
68k 7.8MHz (6MHz effective, due to design) - 68k 7.16MHz
128k ram, not upgradable - 256k ram, upgradable to 512k
400k floppy - 880k floppy
1bit, 512x342 video, hope you like that 9" CRT, because there's no external display support - 12bit color up to 320x512i, 4bit color up to 640x512i, progressive modes available with half the horizontal lines
no expansion slot - one expansion slot
simple 8bit mono sound - 4 voice, stereo, 8bit, hardware mixed sound

>>58846498
Macintosh? No. Apple II, yes.

>>58849857
Wow, with those specs, you'd think they'd be king of the world and owning everyone's shit now.

File: 1482783597496.png (346KB, 500x464px) Image search: [Google]

346KB, 500x464px

>>58849857
>i
This alone ruins it. The Mac display may be tiny but it's crisp as fuck, not gimped on vertical resolution and the interface was nice.

>>58849886
the a1000 could do 320x256 in 12bit color, or 640x256 in 4 bit color
i don't know about you, but i'd rather have color with fewer lines and monochrome

if you were only using it for desktop publishing, then it'd be ok, i suppose

>>58849909
than* monochrome

and yes, the display on the mac was pretty sharp, despite the size, due to it being a black and white CRT, it has no color mask
but it's still pretty tiny, it's be nice if they at least has an option for an external monitor

>>58849885
commodore could into computer, but not business

>>58846498
It used the common power cords, pretty subtoptimal for a mac, it seems.

>>58849958
Every Mac I've ever used had a standard power cord

File: scuzzygraph-front.jpg (18KB, 512x288px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 512x288px

>>58849909
>>58849930
I think it really depends on what you want to do. I'll definitely take an Amiga if my primary interest is games, pixel art, sound, or anything else purely entertainment related.

But for spreadsheets, publishing, any kind of text/information processing I'd definitely pick a Mac or similar monochrome system, especially a Plus with real storage options on the table. It may be underwhelming for entertainment but the interface and the overall higher-quality display definitely make a difference if you're going to stare at it for a long time. I've never been much for older color systems when it comes to "productive" use, and there's still some fun stuff you can play with in 1-bit.

>it's be nice if they at least has an option for an external monitor
*Technically* you could on the SCSI compacts, as hackish as the implementation looks. They had decent color support too depending on what you picked.

>>58849941
Commodore couldn't people who made the 64 and Amiga could.

>>58849978
yea, i get where you're coming from

if it was a business picking out machines for typical office tasks, the mac with it's small, fanless design and higher resolution, progressive, sharp display makes more sense

but you'd get more out of the amiga for home use (except of course, the case of it being used primarily/purely as a work machine)

>>58849885
Commodore took the money they made with the Amiga and tried to get into the x86 PC market. They got crushed there and went under.

>>58850037
Yeah as a home platform it wasn't really as compelling, software was probably a bitch, some of the shit I run on my stuff carried ridiculous price tags before inflation.

>>58846498
>le prove me wronk xDDDDDDDDDDD

Your monitor broken son? Tough shit, send in the whole computer for repair :^)

>>58850188
I'd say the brand made the biggest dent in them. The success of the 64 gave them a great head start but was bound to haunt them later. Americans didn't really seem to take their later products seriously; they were the company that made cheap christmas gifts for your kids and fleet shitboxes for BASIC courses, not serious productivity tools. It didn't help that they mostly marketed and tailored their products to home users on top of it.

>>58849885
Amiga was great in a completely different way.

If Steve Jobs had made a truce with Commodore, the resulting system would've been unstoppable in the market, especially against the PCs of the time.

File: Sonoda.Umi_.full_.1752461.jpg (791KB, 3545x2000px) Image search: [Google]

791KB, 3545x2000px

>>58846498
Amiga. Better and cheaper.

File: 8ba37d04f70d82f7df428789144ae7a8.jpg (192KB, 1920x1200px) Image search: [Google]

192KB, 1920x1200px

>>58846498
NO

this one is

File: geos.jpg (76KB, 640x400px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 640x400px

>>58851546
I would argue that without the original Macintosh, a lot of things that followed wouldn't have happened.

On some level, even more impressive to me is GEOS on the Commodore 64, inspired by the Mac. Take a look at what a small startup did with half the memory of the Mac and a tiny 8-bit 6502. What an accomplishment!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GEOS_(8-bit_operating_system)

>>58846498
i actually liked two and a half men more before charlie sheen got replaced by this chump

>>58846498
Lisa came earlier and was better. It had multitasking, rings and file descriptors like in UNIX and basically more serious.

>>58851886
>single-task
>b&w
Come to think, it's not that impressive when you learn how did they make software back then, but it's still impressive how they managed to embrace the limitations.

File: cbcd0f45ef21386cfe0ae388feef3a33.jpg (55KB, 564x353px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 564x353px

>>58852393
The Mac was single-task in the beginning.

And don't forget that the C64 was definitely a color computer!

File: 1486198603115.jpg (29KB, 480x309px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 480x309px

>>58852445
>The Mac was single-task in the beginning.
I know, and I like GEOS more, if that matters.

C64 is a truly impressive machine.

>>58846498
>Is the original Macintosh the greatest computer ever created?
not even close
$5000 for a 128k machine? get fucked.

Apple][, Commodore64 were both damn good, with the Commodore64 being nearly perfect (except for expensive, slow disk drives)

I often wonder what the world would be like if Woz was hired by Commodore in the early '70s

>>58846498
>underpowered pos even when compared to the applel 2
>greatest computer ever created

>>58852679
>>58852715
even with only 128k of memory the II (and 64) was still a toy in comparison especially when they fixed the lack of RAM pretty much immediately with the 512k

>>58846498
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-9ZQVlgfEAc

JOBS

ETERNALLY

BLOWN

THE

FUCK

OUT

>>58850974
PC's were shit back then, but back then, it wasn't just "mac vs. pc", there were lots of options (which was both good and bad in their own ways)

File: emacSide_2.jpg (51KB, 1152x864px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 1152x864px

>>58851736
i preferred the look of the eMac over that at the time
it was like a somewhat more professional-looking iMac

>>58853424
>PC's were shit back then
wrong

I've had PCs since the early 80s. And while some other systems had better sound and graphics, PCs dominated productivity, and communication. They were also immensely more upgradable. And by the time the 386 hit, it was all over.

>>58853475
stock PC's were shit, it was the expandability which pulled them ahead, being able to choose your configuration and upgrade core functions like with IO controllers, sound cards, network cards, video cards, etc was very compelling

basically, they were more /flexible/

File: 1473579358795.png (136KB, 309x250px) Image search: [Google]

136KB, 309x250px

>>58853475
>PCs dominated productivity
the what?

>>58853598
>stock PC's were shit
>implying they are not today

>>58853605
>t. mactoddler

>>58853605
>productivity
work. job. make money with computer.
aka word processor, spreadsheet, database, dial-up and terminal emulation, etc.

File: 1477999621531.jpg (92KB, 640x641px) Image search: [Google]

92KB, 640x641px

>>58846498
>computer

>>58846498
No. Because the original Amiga was better and $1000 less.

> not wanting a fan in the Apple III because Jobs was an autistic design fag.

Kys OP. Apple has always been shit because their products are design over function.

>>58853637
I don't understand what are you implying.

>>58853643
That explains, thanks.

>>58853679
/thread

File: IMG_0082.jpg (57KB, 500x400px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 500x400px

>designed by apple
>built in Japan by IBM
Find a flaw

File: kensington_system-saver.jpg (147KB, 965x794px) Image search: [Google]

147KB, 965x794px

>>58853679
>>58853721
Steve's autism created Kensington

>>58853746
I can't. Dick is diamonds.

File: IBM_Thinkpad_770.jpg (484KB, 1536x2048px) Image search: [Google]

484KB, 1536x2048px

>>58853746
no clit

here's a thinkpad from around the same time

>>58853746
>apple
Found your problem.

>>58853646
>shitposter

File: 1408818201829.gif (987KB, 229x176px) Image search: [Google]

987KB, 229x176px

>>58853839

File: next.jpg (51KB, 945x500px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 945x500px

>>58846498
>"Is the original Macintosh the greatest computer ever created?"
>greatest computer ever created

>>58853475
>"They were also immensely more upgradable."
>couldn't match macs with all their upgrades

There's a reason why the desktop publishing revolution happened on Mac.

>>58853196
How will mactoddlers ever recover?

>>58851546
This, the best 68k Macintosh is still an Amiga.

>>58851546
>>58858882
i didn't know amiga had photoshop and all those other great programs macs had

oh wait, kek, it didn't

nah that would be the surface pro 4

>>58852085
That's Dr. Carter from ER.

>>58846498
What did it do better than any other computer at the time? I can only remember using a paint program and maybe playing games at school in the early 90s.

>>58859850
The Amiga was objectively better from a hardware standpoint, but yes, software support was not as good.

>>58860649
Well it had a GUI for a start... It pre-dated GEM (1985), GEOS (1986), Windows (late-1985), Amiga Workbench (1985). About the only precursor was Apple's own Lisa Office. Since PARC's Alto systems weren't commercially available.

>>58860752
Thanks.

>>58859850
>>58860752
>Implying you can't virtualize Mac OS on an Amiga at full speed.
>Implying the fastest machine to run 68k Mac OS is not an "060 Amiga
Stop embarrassing yourselves.

I am under the sinking impression that everyone in this thread is a fucking retard.

>>58860845
This.

They actually think at the time the original Macintosh came out it was good, while there was the IIgs and Amiga.

>>58860873
The Amiga 1000 came out 18 months later in July of '85. The IIgs came out in Sept. '86! In early 1984 the Macintosh was the only game in town.

>>58860949
and nobody gave a fuck about it

>>58860972
Selling 70,000 computers in the first 100 days doesn't sound like a computer that nobody gave a fuck about.

File: hqdefault.jpg (15KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 480x360px

>>58859850
Who needs Photoshop when you have Deluxe Paint at a fraction of the cost?

>>58860649
Mainstream, consumer market computers, or are you going to bring up obscure workstations that not even most computer geeks knew of at the time?

I love my iMac.

>>58861875
which model of iMac do you have?

i always wanted to get a launch model just to have one.

>>58846498
I remember having one as a kid. one of the first computer symbols I learned about was the one that looks like a round little bomb. could never finish any of the games because they would always crash. the original macs were crap as were their successors.

>>58849279
wtf does anybody need 8MB of RAM for????

>>58861130
dad never let me use those floppies for some reason...

he mustve had some epic porn to hide or something

PC98 > Macintosh

File: diskcopy.jpg (36KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 480x360px

>>58862584
who cares about the porn, should've copied the program floppy.

>>58846498
Let's see

>wasn't created by Woz
>didn't replace the IBM PC
>didn't save Apple
>didn't save Jobs from being fired
>didn't keep Apple from needing to be bailed out by Microsoft

See, Apple's downfall started with the original Mac. It cost too damn much, it was too damn slow, it didn't have enough good software, and it wasn't business friendly. It was just shit, and it killed Apple.

>>58862611
>>>/jp/

File: 68d81b5c84469e8c5bdd00f43f576a69.1000x750x1.jpg (27KB, 1000x750px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 1000x750px

>>58862967
>kept Apple alive and independent long enough to be able pull this little miracle off

welp!

>>58863143
You mean long enough to steal Palm and Nokia's technologies and shove them together and charge a crazy amount of money for a really slow and buggy device which was crashing and unusable even at the very first demo by Jobs?

The iPhone is literally cancer, it only took off because people are suckers for brushed aluminum. Not to mention how many morons think Jobs had anything to do with the design of any of those products that brought Apple back.

File: newton iphone.jpg (144KB, 1200x900px) Image search: [Google]

144KB, 1200x900px

>>58863190
>steal Palm and Nokia's technologies

welp!

>>58863213
>he thinks Apple invented PDAs

The irony is that the Newton was yet another of Apple's absolute failures. They couldn't even steal technology successfully during those years.

It just goes to show that Jobs' reality distortion field is literally the only thing that ever sold Apple's products. And notice that now that he's dead that Apple's numbers are dropping and their products are literally the same junk you'd get from some Chinese clones.

File: iphone se.jpg (128KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

128KB, 1920x1080px

>>58863293
>their products are literally the same junk you'd get from some Chinese clones

welp!

>>58863293
>not stealing
>must mean invented if not stealing
Kid, did you invent graphics cards? Cause you have one in your computer.

>>58863190
Yup and it worked, he made billions.
People still make billions of hes idea.

File: jobbs.jpg (1MB, 2250x1500px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2250x1500px

>>58846498
do you mean the apple II? the apple 1 wasn't very good.

>source Michael Fassbender

>>58862967
>See, Apple's downfall started with the original Mac.
It was what kept it alive. The Apple II was a piece of shit toy that got swept up by the PC revolution with every other 8-bit shitbox, Apple under Woz would have went straight into the trash. He wasn't that special.
>It cost too damn much
$2,500 was a pretty typical price for a computer by that time and fuck all especially for big publishers and businesses that bought them, look beyond the insignificant '80s consumer market.
>it was too damn slow
The shitty initial model was, and it got shitcanned for the 512K pretty much immediately.
>it didn't have enough good software
Not at first, but it gained a lot in time. Go browse the Macintosh Garden some time, it may never have matched the PC base but it was still nothing to laugh at.
>and it wasn't business friendly
The only real problem with the first run as far as business use goes was their fuck all options for decent mass storage, which were remedied with the Plus a few years later. By that time they had great support from big-name vendors and plenty of peripherals to match.
>It was just shit, and it killed Apple.
No, it merely upset your nostalgic rose-tinted view of the time. The kind of trashy 8-bits Woz and co. shit out were ultimately trash that only sold well because they were the only affordable option. By 1987 the Macintosh platform was a leap forward in pretty much every discernible way but cost-effectiveness in the home, and that insatiable shit show of a market was never worth caring about back then anyway.

File: applecomputersbitch.jpg (190KB, 640x868px) Image search: [Google]

190KB, 640x868px

>>58863639
you shut your mouth

File: A1000.jpg (35KB, 490x361px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 490x361px

>>58846498

No. The operating system was shitty.

Amiga was vastly superior. Graphics co-processors, preemptive multitasking, and a great command line.

File: 1483100300104.jpg (31KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 600x600px

>>58860825
>ruining the beauty of the Macintosh package running it on ugly Commodore toy shit
>that won't do any of that in the first place without paying out the ass for multiple niche third-party expansions that need to be independently acquired from sources with inconsistent availability
Amigatoddlers are the personification of 10/10 bait.

>>58864049
my family owned a C64 and an Amiga, but even I agree that versus the Amiga, the Mac was designed better (even if it couldn't do as much).

File: 1484430800716.jpg (68KB, 900x675px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 900x675px

>>58864049
>but muh games
>I can open 3 juggler instances at once (and only view one at a time in my shitty 80x200 "high resolution" mode!)
It gets me every time.

>>58852445

GeOS was amazing. So was the x86 version (Geoworks Ensemble?) they made. I remember reading a magazine with a screenshot showing a clip from Star Trek IV, they mentioned that they could play a full-motion video clip with audio while doing some other multi-tasking operation. That was amazing for the day.

>>58864064
> versus the Amiga, the Mac was designed better

Huh? No way.

The Amiga was *brilliantly* designed. Seriously, they were some genius engineers who developed it. The expandability was unlike anything before or since. Look at the insane lifetime of the A500, for example. You could add on a whole series of accelerator cards and end up with a 68040 CPU and 16 megs of RAM on a "toy" form factor. The A2000/3000/4000 took that even further.

The operating system itself was excellent.

The one and only thing the Mac had over it was display resolution. You could have crisp, slow, monochrome graphics on the Mac, or you could have fast, colorful, flickering graphics on the Amiga.

Again, for the day, the Amiga was the best engineered hardware and the best featured operating system.

As for software, the Amiga had quite a lot to offer. There was a great desktop publishing application, the name of which I forget, which just never became an industry standard.

I seriously doubt most people on this board can even imagine how much diversity and competition there was back then.

File: 120316comp128.jpg (61KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 640x480px

>>58864177
I'm saying that the Mac in 1984 had a professional fit and finish that Commodore tried to imitate with the Amiga in 1985, but just couldn't pull off properly.

Had Commodore been as good at marketing as Steve Jobs, I'm sure the Amiga would still be a viable computer.

>>58864177
>The expandability was unlike anything before or since.
You're thinking of upgradability, the non-big box Amigas were pretty lame for actual expansion, but you could surely expand them far beyond their useful life.

That isn't really something to credit Commodore or even the Amiga platform itself with, either, it's the community that makes that kind of hardware viable. PCs never had that kind of hardware beyond maybe odd-balls like Overdrive chips because you could just board swap them, which was much more of an improvement as well as more economical.

Macs enjoyed the availability of third-party accelerators as well but never to the extent of the Amiga, probably because the Mac actually survived commercially and it was completely pointless to be kitting out NuBus systems with expensive G4 upgrades when you could just buy newer used systems for about the same investment.

>The operating system itself was excellent.
It certainly was, but in meaningful ways? I think it's up to debate depending on what you did with your system. Preemptive multitasking, for example, isn't necessarily an end-all-be-all on what is ultimately a single-user system designed to be used for one thing at a time, and pretty much forced that way by low display resolution.

The Macintosh was a generally more "polished" product that was more pleasurable to use and stare at for long periods of time, which I'd consider a pretty big deal especially for the kinds of information-heavy tasks you put them to work on.

>The one and only thing the Mac had over it was display resolution. You could have crisp, slow, monochrome graphics on the Mac, or you could have fast, colorful, flickering graphics on the Amiga.
And I don't think that's something to brush off so casually, it was one of the things that made the Macintosh so compelling in publishing aside from the peripherals and software that weren't quite matched by the competition.

>>58853137
>>58863968
>512k
>Original Mac

Yeah, we are talking about the original, not the one that was released 6 months later to correct design mistakes.

>>58864049
Yes, but the Amiga over specialized the hardware. While IBM and Apple were selling oodles of machines to offices and businesses, Amiga was aiming for a very particular market.


I will say, for better or worse, the original Macintosh is iconic. However, it is far from the greatest computer ever. That would likely be, despite huge limitations and ridiculous pricing for peripherals (External disk drive costing more than the computer), the Commodore 64.

Then again, I probably have some bias because I grew up with a Commodore Vic 20 and almost everyone I knew had a Commodore when I was growing up. Hell, my grade 7 computer lab was Commodore 128s, though they were 6 years old by that time.

>>58856944
Wasn't NEXT a Steve's company?

File: 9845C_shuttle.jpg (651KB, 2288x2619px) Image search: [Google]

651KB, 2288x2619px

continuing >>58864370
>Again, for the day, the Amiga was the best engineered hardware and the best featured operating system.
You're going to accuse me of nitpicking and avoiding what you probably meant, but that's a very consumer-centric statement and just plain disrespectful to the scores of high-end vendors like IBM, Xerox, Sun, HP and others who were blowing the Amiga's capabilities out of the water years before it was so much as a doodle on a crumpled napkin.

The Amiga was a fantastic home computer in its price bracket, but it was hardly the "best of the best" in every respect. And there's nothing wrong with that.

>As for software, the Amiga had quite a lot to offer. There was a great desktop publishing application, the name of which I forget, which just never became an industry standard.
It sounds like it wasn't so great if someone as seemingly passionate about the platform can't even remember the name. After all, offering an alternative doesn't make it competitive or compelling by merit of its existence.
Apple and Aldus initially had little clout in the publishing market they eventually took by the balls, they had to earn it.

>>58864511
>>512k
>>Original Mac
It's pretty reasonable to say that the 512K was in many respects still the "original Mac", sporting the same exact hardware barring the quadrupled RAM, and released in the same year after the first iteration proved inadequate.

And hell, it's only fair if you're going to compare the platform to the likes of a third-party accelerated Amiga.

>>58863190
I think you are describing an Android phone.

>>58863293
>stealing
>what is patend
>what is licensing

And Tim Cook only care about the numbers, if they are rising that is enough. Apple now needs a shook up.

>>58853746
does it come with the animu grill?

>>58863293
What exactly was "stolen" about the Newton's tech? The fact that it had buttons and a touch screen or something? It was just another entry into the early '90s pen computing fad, and as far as the tech went it was a perfectly good PDA.

It was expensive and niche (like pretty much every other pen computing meme toy) and that was ultimately what lead it to lackluster earnings. Still enjoyed a longer run than many of its competitors despite that.

>>58864575
>And hell, it's only fair if you're going to compare the platform to the likes of a third-party accelerated Amiga.

I concede that it's a reasonable conceit, but at the same time it's not comparable to third party accelerators. They didn't require buying a computer twice to upgrade.


Really, though, it was all an interesting era of technology: We had so little memory video output was either high res low colour or low res multi colour (CGA had some nifty ideas around this). We had 8 bit and 16 bit machines competing at the same time, with little of the rhetoric of the game console wars that happened year later. Internal storage was super rare so disks, cartridges and tape were how you got programs to load (or spending hours typing basic code from the back of a magazine).

Part of me misses those days, but hardware is so much cheaper now. The idea that you could have a portable computer more powerful than all the super computers produced to that point combined with a screen resolution greater than 640x480 with millions of colours that is touch sensitive, with wireless access to networks and the ability to fit in your pocket would be witchcraft 30 years ago.

>>58864655
It's Apple, you dumb fucking piece of shit. Everything they do is stolen.

Also why the fuck does this shitty thread has so much Apple cocksucking going on?

>>58864740
>being this upset that you literally have no idea what the fuck you're talking about and are getting rightfully called out for it
You should go back to where you came from until you learn that being a mindless contrarian sheep doesn't make you fit in here.

>>58864772
>t. mactoddler

>>58864740
Aren't you talking about microsoft? Like, they hijacked a dude so he could give them the codes to build internet explorer?

File: apple rainbow.jpg (13KB, 568x320px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 568x320px

>>58864740
as ardent homosexuals, we Apple owners thoroughly enjoy the act of fellatio.

>>58849087
All this writing and no reading comprehension.

>>58864785
what, in response to your confusing non-sequitur of a post trying to give Sun credit for something they had no hand in?

File: r86r5865-cray-xmp.jpg (621KB, 3759x2760px) Image search: [Google]

621KB, 3759x2760px

>>58864738
>I concede that it's a reasonable conceit, but at the same time it's not comparable to third party accelerators. They didn't require buying a computer twice to upgrade.
Could've just board swapped one cheaply down the road, but that's still true if you were unlucky enough to have found yourself stuck with a strangled 128K after the 512K took over as the flagship.

>Really, though, it was all an interesting era of technology: We had so little memory video output was either high res low colour or low res multi colour (CGA had some nifty ideas around this). We had 8 bit and 16 bit machines competing at the same time
And pretty much every bit of it had some sort of fascinating history, compelling advantage or compromise in one way or another. Biased retroshilling in threads like these triggers me unduly because of it.

>Part of me misses those days, but hardware is so much cheaper now.
New and old. It's never been a better time to be into [desktop] computing history with all the software, support and documentation the internet affords us and the wicked cheap toys we can get our hands on.

>The idea that you could have a portable computer more powerful than all the super computers produced to that point combined
Don't shit on a work of art like that, hell I'd be willing to bet a good Cray could probably take on modern chink shit all day long in a real supercomputing workload. Linpack is just a useless number.

>>58864844
Read
>>58846765
>Every computer now is pretty much a Macintosh.
Notice how I replied to this post rather than the OP but you have mistakenly assumed otherwise?

Sun workstations were the first computers of note to exhibit the standard of the monitor, PC, keyboard, and mouse being separate and interchangeable components. They were also some of the first systems to feature high resolution color displays in combination with these things.

None of any of this has to do with them being "the greatest computer ever created" because that is not the question being answered. If you had read more critically you would have seen that.

Anyway
>Sun was a literally who outside of the high-end before the dotcom boom made them big and didn't really stand out to the point of meaningfully impacting consumer systems

Anyway
>Sun was a literally who outside of the high-end before the dotcom boom made them big and didn't really stand out to the point of meaningfully impacting consumer systems

Most of your desktop PCs since the late 90s strongly resemble 80s workstations. Our big advancement has been modular GPUs (in the strict sense). And LCD monitors, I suppose.

File: 19273iowne00wjpg[1].jpg (44KB, 800x530px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 800x530px

>>58846498
No, this is.

File: compiler_structure.png (60KB, 537x723px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 537x723px

>>58846498
Turing machine is better.

>>58865074
touché

>>58864056
What are you even talking about?
Out of the box they were like any other 68k machine of the time, like the Macintosh, but you could expand the Amiga way more then a Macintosh.

That's where the saying "the fastest Macintosh is still an Amiga" comes from.

Lurk more pal

>>58864368
Commodore didn't try to pull of anything.

Seriously, learn some history if you talk about something before your time.

>>58864575
>It sounds like it wasn't so great if someone as seemingly passionate about the platform can't even remember the name.

You never used a program, why would you remember the name 20 years later? I don't even care about this discussion but you seem autistic about it.

>>58849279
this

t. have a IIGS

>>58849279
>Color
>Not WYSIWYG for black and white printers

File: 1486499764124.webm (2MB, 720x720px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 720x720px

To anyone arguing about Macintosh VS Amiga, the Amiga was always ahead of the Macintosh.

It was until the G3 that the Macintosh became actually something useful.


I don't care about the average Joe, my Amigas where always better than my Macintoshes, both accelerated, the Amiga always got more power out of it's expansions.

>>58865142
>You never used a program, why would you remember the name 20 years later?
Because you're trying to use it to further a narrative, and you apparently don't even know what the fuck you're actually talking about.

>I don't even care about this discussion but you seem autistic about it.
Then why did you bother replying? Why are you even in this thread? You wrote a long post, I wrote a long post back. I figured I'd actually get an interesting discussion going, instead I got this dumb shit.

>>58864575
That advertisement looks a bit BS. What task is supposed to be demonstrated there?

File: 1485812321197.png (358KB, 552x543px) Image search: [Google]

358KB, 552x543px

>>58865115
>literally just repeating the same dumb shit you already said in the first shitpost I replied to
Kek

We understand that your frankensteined 2000 with a bunch of expensive/rare aftermarket add-ons can undoubtedly run Mac OS faster than hardware that never even shipped with an '060 in the first place, that was never called into question.

It's why Amigashills think anyone genuinely cares when it's old, slow shit in the end that continues to baffle us to this day. There's this thing called "emulation" for normal people who just want to run old software quickly for whatever reason.

>>58865316
>moving the goalposts
You macfucks really are something are you?

>>58865234
This was my post in this thread.

I didn't talk to you before.

>>58865316
I was talking about "back in the day". When those platforms where competing on the market.
Also why do people say "expensive/rare" all the time, this shit was so common, maybe not in the US, but I could get awesome stuff even for my shitty pay back then on every demo party.

Also no, emulation is flawed, specially for the Amiga. Believe it or not.
Even 68k Macintosh emulation these days is "crash 5 times before getting something done" state.

>>58865343
>y...y-you moved the goalposts!
No, sorry, I'm pretty sure I just repeated myself as you did. Throwing random logical phalluses around isn't going to wriggle you out of this one.

You bring up this obnoxiously retarded shit in like every other thread where the Amiga is mentioned, stop it.

>>58865316
You didn't need 3rd party accelerations or shit to run Mac OS on an Amiga... you could easily run Photoshop and play Worms on AmigaOS and Mac OS respectively and switch between them in ease.

>>58865391
>I was talking about "back in the day". When those platforms where competing on the market.
Yeah, and?
>Also why do people say "expensive/rare" all the time
Because it is? It's niche shit for a dead platform made by third parties with no consistent supply line. And yeah, outside of Europe you'd be lucky to find an Amiga at all to begin with, let alone the parts to actually make it worth a damn.
>Also no, emulation is flawed, specially for the Amiga. Believe it or not.
>Even 68k Macintosh emulation these days is "crash 5 times before getting something done" state.
Oh, please, don't try that nitpicking shit like you think it's fooling any of the millions of people who emulate both just fine with minimal hiccups.
>>58865415
You did if you wanted to actually do it well. No amount of clever programming was going to make a shitty bare stock Amiga "the fastest Macintosh"

>>58865479
>You did if you wanted to actually do it well. No amount of clever programming was going to make a shitty bare stock Amiga "the fastest Macintosh"
Are you blind? I said run Mac OS and run it fine.

Jesus, that's some pathetic attempt at baiting if that's bait.

File: 1486361373603.gif (162KB, 329x353px) Image search: [Google]

162KB, 329x353px

>>58865498
>Are you blind? I said run Mac OS and run it fine.
Have you actually been reading what this bullshit is all about or are you just interjecting because you like reading your own shitposting?

>>58865479
>Yeah, and?
Should be pretty clear then how well supported and popular a system was if it had such great support for running an unofficial OS better than anything the company who actually sold machines for it to run on.

Even for 3rd party accelerators, the Amiga had faster ones then a Macintosh.

That's nothing to be ashamed about like you make it seem, your argument seems to be that it's literary bad because people liked it more and liked developing for it. Obviously if you're American also you might think it was a rare and expensive scene, but not here.

>>58865479
>Oh, please, don't try that nitpicking shit like you think it's fooling any of the millions of people who emulate both just fine with minimal hiccups.
Then you must be familiar with the problems, I mean forums are full of the shit. I'll forgive you your ignorance, you're obviously just mad, bad day?

File: 1485805227738.jpg (114KB, 1204x680px) Image search: [Google]

114KB, 1204x680px

>>58865533
>Should be pretty clear then how well supported and popular a system was if it had such great support for running an unofficial OS better than anything the company who actually sold machines for it to run on.
Are you really so feeble-minded that you're this astounded by the fact that a fast 68k system runs 68k software faster than slower 68k systems? What is even your endgame here? First you're repeating how the "Amiga was the fastest Macintosh" and now you're trying to defend the popularity of the platform by saying that it exists, like a single autistic project working out is really indicative of its success to begin with, as if anyone even cared.

>Even for 3rd party accelerators, the Amiga had faster ones then a Macintosh.
No shit, because people could actually go out and buy a new Macintosh with all the bells and whistles when their old one got long in the teeth while the Amiga camp was forced to prolong the life of ancient discontinued systems as long as possible unless they wanted to pay out the ass for some vaporware reboot shitbox. It's not surprising.

>That's nothing to be ashamed about like you make it seem, your argument seems to be that it's literary bad because people liked it more and liked developing for it. Obviously if you're American also you might think it was a rare and expensive scene, but not here.
The fuck are you even talking about, I'm calling your retarded shillposting with this "Amiga is the fastest Macintosh" shit as if anyone really cares what ultimately is slightly less slow at running a bunch of deprecated old software in 2017. It's hilarious and ridiculous how far Amigatards will go to try and gloat about their shit in whatever way possible.

File: Sabrina_Online.jpg (101KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

101KB, 800x600px

>>58865629
Literally Europe vs. America. This argument will not end.
If you're from europe and you're also a massive furfag, you're an amigaguy.
If you're from the US and you're also a massive deluded faggot, you're a macfag.

>I prefer furfag to a fully fledged actual faggot

No, it was a pile of steaming shit compared to Apples other offerings at the time.

>>58865629
>It's not surprising.
Obviously it's not, the base stock amiga was several time cheaper also than a Macintosh, not to mention the big box Amigas where even out of the factory exactly same speced (except the great chipset) than the Macintoshes.

So yeah, your argument that the Amiga had accelerators because it was a less capable system is literally false and if you wanted to pay you could still have a several time better machine than the Macintosh.

>>58865629
>It's hilarious and ridiculous how far Amigatards will go to try and gloat about their shit in whatever way possible.
>Amigatards
Sorry, I like all computers, including my Quadra 650 that I have had since the mid 90's.

>>58865629
>as long as possible unless they wanted to pay out the ass for some vaporware reboot shitbox.
You don't really know much about the subject, do you?

>vaporware reboot shitboxes in the 90's
wut

It's amazing how fucking advanced Amiga was at the time.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KlB9XnmJU1o&list=PLI3dnq4toqbxV76NhIhFGu5sxuHAuS8m8
Try doing any of this type multimedia work on anything else back in the late 80s, good luck with that!

>>58865658
It's really perfect when you look at it that way.

We're all deluded, fuck it. I like both of them and I just wish people would stop trying to rose-tint whatever shitbox they contended with in their childhood so much and just see it for what it is.

I'm going to sleep, see you next time.

>>58865686
Same, I fucking hate that 650 case though

>>58865672
>So yeah, your argument that the Amiga had accelerators because it was a less capable system
Stop putting words in my mouth nigger

>>58865699
Are you retards purposely illiterate? They stopped making "real" Amigas decades ago. The same was not true for Macs. It's a no-brainer the Amiga is going to have better accelerators than a fucking Mac that you can keep replacing with newer Macs instead of kludging up your old one with an ultimately shittier accelerator upgrade.

>>58865314
Undoubtedly CAD. There was a world beyond the shelves at your local Radio Shack.
http://www.hp9845.net/9845/hardware/9845c/

>>58865359
So you were just shitting up the discussion? That's cool.

>>58865165
That's actually a little creepy

>>58846498
that would be the commodore amiga anon

>>58862617
lol i was too afraid to get beat

fucking with the forbidden amiga floppies i may as well inject heroin and steal my dads car

>>58865671
in what way?

you're trolling, aren't you?

File: amiga-a1000-signatures-large.jpg (440KB, 2000x1358px) Image search: [Google]

440KB, 2000x1358px

>>58865125
>learn some history if you talk about something before your time.

Before my time? I lived it. It was my time.

Commodore even imitated the creators' signatures on the inside of the Mac. Not a bad idea, but had Steve Jobs not done it they probably would have done the same thing they did with the C128: Nothing special.

>>58869027
No. Do some basic fucking research.

>>58869121
i co-founded Apple. maybe it's you that needs to do some reserach, kid.

File: lilbook.jpg (149KB, 612x612px) Image search: [Google]

149KB, 612x612px

>>58869158
>i co-founded Apple

3/10, I chuckled.

>>58869168
they'll never guess which founder.

File: 1478025821552.jpg (22KB, 416x405px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 416x405px

>>58869444

>>58846498
That title goes to my computer OP.

File: 1455552607348.jpg (56KB, 649x566px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 649x566px

>>58869158
>>58869168
>>58869523

>>58870260
spoiler: it's steve jobs

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W69ojO851fA

>>58865794
But that doesn't look like anything anyone would do with CAD. Why is the shuttle all rainbow colored? Where are the UI elements?