Comments on: Are today's Macs related to the Mac Daddy?
After 25 years, is there much remaining of the first Macintoshes in today's much faster, more powerful models?
After 25 years, is there much remaining of the first Macintoshes in today's much faster, more powerful models?
Web sites launch all the time, but they also shut their doors. We highlight 15 that bit the dust this year.
Let the debate begin: Was the iPhone more important than iTunes? Was anything bigger than Google finding a great business model? CNET offers its list of the 10 most important stories of the '00s.
At the start of the 21st century, there's no tech outfit more influential than Apple. CNET News' Erica Ogg and other reporters will attempt to make sense of the rumors, hype, products, and people that will shape the future of the company. But Apple's not the only game in town, as the established cell phone companies and others strike back against the iPhone. E-mail Erica at erica.ogg@cnet.com.
Add this feed to your online news reader
That, it appears, is exactly where Raines has been if he thinks the current Mac is more closely related to the original than it is to a Windows computer.
So yeah, related like that for sure.
I think Fitts's law -- it's easier to move the mouse to the top of the screen than to a menu strip in the middle of the screen -- was a much bigger factor in the original design, and is certainly what has kept that decision relevant. (And even if you want to claim its main purpose was to save screen real estate, there's still no reason to suggest that that's not still relevant.)
I like the ribbon interface on Office 07 and apparently it will be in Win7 more. Hope it sees greater adoption across platforms, even if it means loosing the connection to legacy systems.
The original Mac OS was designed from the ground up to be a GUI-based system, and it had some features and conventions to it that were superior to Mac OS X because--at it's core--Mac OS X is Unix. And what is Unix but a freaking ancient system--in terms of technology--from the 1960s. (!)
Don't get me wrong, I'm not a total Unix/Linux hater, but I stand my ground on the fact that these systems carry baggage from a bygone era of computing, and they were never originally designed for GUI use.
Take the simple structure of the file hierarchy in Unix--/ (root), /etc, /bin, /var, /usr, etc. This is cryptic and not user friendly for the average person; it's suitable maybe for programmers and engineers. Wheres Microsoft can evolve the naming of its root C:\ directories from WINNT to Windows or Documents and Settings to Users over time to improve it for usability, who will ever step in and change the now obsolete structure of Unix? No one, because no one has true control over Unix (and by extension, Linux), and because doing so would break too many things that depend on this decades-old structure.
The reality is that, in the tech world, most technologies enjoy a lifespan of 5, 10, or perhaps 15 years, and then they become obsolete and are replaced. Who would want to run DOS as a primary OS now? Who would want to play an Atari 2600 as their main game console anymore? Who would want the original Palm Pilot as their PDA? But despite the odds, Unix stays around. I know the reasons why, but I don't have to like them, and I don't have to like it when a pure and elegant GUI-only system like the original Mac OS gets killed off by some crusty, command-line era remnant of 1960s programming.
There, I said it. :-)
The standard names were chosen for brevity in command line typing and before you put that down show us the GUI that has the power, transparency, and flexibility of shell scripts.
- by Bill_I January 28, 2009 9:04 AM PST
- Go rent the movie 'Pirates of Silicon Valley'.
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
(24 Comments)