veroman
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off
|
 Re: Why iMac over PC | |
David Baldwin wrote:
\"IMHO it is all in the marketing\" Just about sums it up
No it doesn\'t. It seems to me ... and I could be wrong about this ... that some who have posted here do not know the history behind these two very different platforms. So let me try to convey that history as briefly as possible.
First: the Macintosh was designed from Day One as a software-based, graphical user interface (what we used to call a GUI ... or Gooey). The processor, motherboard, ICs and everything else inside a Mac box are subservient to that software (or operating system), as was The Mouse, an Apple invention. Everything inside and outside the Mac is designed to support that operating system, now OS 10 X. The original GUI was actually developed by Xerox. Steve Jobs saw that interface, thought it the best way to develop a personal computer, and went on to develop the precursor to the Mac ... a machine called Lisa ($10,000 in 1982). The Lisa was a mistake and was replaced by the Mac 512 and then the SE ($2,700 in 1984).
The IBM-based PC was designed from Day One as a hardware-based machine. IBM\'s idea was to develop a personal computer that could be manufactured by anyone, anywhere, using off-the shelf parts that are easily available or could be fabricated/manufactured with relative ease.
It was a great idea except for one thing: IBM didn\'t have an operating system to support this hardware idea. Along comes Bill Gates (and a few other individuals and companies), who is invited to present an operating system concept to IBM that would work with just about any configuration of this new p/c idea.
At the very first meeting, Gates told IBM he believed he had the operating system that would pull it all together. Actually, he had nothing, but he KNEW of a guy that had developed something called DOS (Digital Operating System) and bought it from him for $50,000 ... not telling him, of course, what it would be used for. The rest of that guy\'s life is kind of a tragedy, but that\'s a different story.
When the Macintosh took off like nothing before, it was evident that users were gravitating towards a GUI-type machine. Gates & Company asked Jobs for a few Macs to study (they were friends at the time), then took it upon himself to reverse engineer the Macintosh desktop \"look\" in order to develop the operating system called Windows, which rested on top of DOS, the underlying operating system of the PC.
It was a flagrant slap in the face to Jobs. MS was hauled into court and was involved in a litigation vs. Apple last lasted some 15-20 years (I think). Apple lost, unfortunately. It was, in reality, a complete rip-off.
However ... and this is the big \"however\" ... what MS did was rip off only the desktop look, feel and the appearance of a GUI. They did not rip off the MAC OS because they couldn\'t. It\'s proprietary. To the best of my knowledge, there are no other machines in the world that are driven by the Mac OS. There was a time ... a brief spell thank heaven ... when Apple licensed their OS to other makers, but it turned out to be disastrous move on their part. When the licenses expired they were not renewed.
Bottom line of all this: there really is no such thing as a PC. There is no single machine that\'s a PC that sets the standard for all other PCs and to which all other PCs are compared. Why? Because that was never the idea behind the PC. To this day, anyone and everyone can build a PC from off the shelf parts, including individuals. It\'s a non-proprietary, hardware-based idea that\'s about as unique a single banana in a bunch of bananas.
The Macintosh, on the other hand, is singular and very unique. There is no other machine that\'s a Macintosh except an Apple Macintosh, and there is no machine that operates like a Macintosh except another Macintosh.
This all goes well beyond marketing. The concepts behind each machine are entirely different. They might APPEAR the same from a desktop point-of-view or even from an application point-of-view. But that does not make them the same, no more than I\'m the same man when I wear a black suit as the man next to me who is wearing the same, exact black suit.
- Steve
|
