I don't agree at all. Apart from the Mac still being the most widely used graphics design and audio professional's machine, I think that Mac OS X was a leap in both versatility (due to its UNIX-Base) AND professionality (improved memory management etc.).

On the other hand, both Classic Macs and Mac OS X have largely been targeting home users ("it's the computer I would buy my mom ..."). Hence, nothing new and (in particular!) nothing bad there. When I switched this was the first obvious benefit and ever since I switched it's my primary argument when being asked what's better about Macs: You get them out of the box and they work for whatever you want to use them. Both professionals using "advanced functions" and everyday users benefit from that. That has always been the case, with the exception of a few by now forgotten dark years in between.

I'm sure that everyone has their own reasons for using a Mac.

it's just that when you get outside those basic functions, reading email, watching YouTube, online shopping, then I find the Mac "just works", and when I go back to an HP or Dell or whatever, again, ouside of those basic functions, I'm struck by the crappiness of Windows hardware and the pain of using the OS.

Of course, when you get into those key areas, email, YouTube and shopping then Windows works just fine, which is maybe why the Mac has targetted those functions to make extremely easy and cool.

I got into a new class at the collage this autumn, and it was quite funny because two of my new class mates were Apple haters. It was quite a few years since I meet any of those, they must some kind of relic from the 90s...

One of them said I only used my Macintosh for simple things like web browsing, which probably is very true. He said that Mac OS isn't good enough for programming. I told friend of mine of this and he laughed. He is studying data engineering and said in his class of 90 pupils, a third were using Mac OS, 40% were using Linux and 20% were using Windows, the rest were using some kind of combination.

And by the way; Obviously the iPhone alone brought more money to Apple the last quarter than whole Microsoft earned.

I remember reading somewhere else that in 2006 (?) Apple had made more money off the iPod industry than the Macintosh industry.

On the topic at hand, you'll find that under Sculley's management of Apple Computer he was trying to make more of a commercial market appeal than a home one.

Well, Sculley left in 1993, didn't he?

By then there were basically no market at all for home computers. The boom was after Windows 95 was released, somewhere 1996-1998, at least in Sweden.

Here is an interesting article:

Does iOS doom the Mac?

I think computer users nowadays (not just Mac users) are oriented more towards consumption than production than they were in the 90s. Back then if you had a computer you most likely used it to create something (they weren't cheap). In my case it was an Amiga for a mix between gaming and music production.

Now everyone has one and with the internet, use has switched to consuming other people's works. How many average Mac users use Garageband more than iTunes?

@Protocol 7: :thumbsup:

The computer market today is almost saturated with the conventional devices and resources (Macs and PCs) - in my view. That's why people are being drawn to tablets and smartphones. And companies try to stay on the market, so they try to make things (ridiculously) easy - like, let's say, the Launchpad in OS X Lion or Final Cut Pro X.
I switched to Mac OS X because of its stability, the design of both hardware and software and because useful software is included with any Mac, like Time Machine and iMovie. The Mac is the Amiga of today.

Yes, of course. We use computers way different today than we did in the stone age (before 1995). Internet changed it all, and also Windows 95 when the software on those other computers also became good enough to use.

But I wouldn't say it's just consuming and there have been several incremental changes since the first home computer-/Internet-boom.

Well, we/they have a consuming *behaviour* using the computers, as we´re always in the middle of a information Tsunami. The ratio intentionally produced information/recieved information have changed, and is still changing, drastically over the last decade. Also take in calculation the more electronics that can be used 'computer-wise'; cell phones, handhelds, surf plates, etc. That list is bound to expand…

I don't know about the rest of you, but I used a Mac because it was different. Then again my first Mac was a Macintosh II and when I got it, it was ancient. I think OS 8 was already out. So I wasn't going to do anything taxing on it. I still have a pull out poster for a Powerbook G3. It just looked sweet. It was slick. It had a visual appeal that PCs had not mastered. Plus, according to the poster, it ate pentiums for lunch.

So the whole Think Different add campaign was aimed at me. Then again I have always been a little weird.

Today though Macs hold a fascination because, as it has been said, they just work.

I use, and have been using Macintosh since 1993. My father bought our first computer in 1990, a LC, but I don't think I ever used that one although I can remember it. My first computer experience was the Centris 650 we got in 1993 and which I still have.

So, I have never used anything else. Of course, I've been using the Windows environment in school and at work. I do think that Windows those days were some kind of joke – at least it felt like that when you were used to Mac OS 7.1.1 from home.

The Powerbook G3 series (Wallstreet) was indeed very sexy compared to the laptops of those days.

I think this is one of the best performances of Steve Jobs:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GnO7D5UaDig

I really love this quote:

"I don't think it's good that Apple's perceived as different. I think it's important that Apple's perceived as much better. If being different is essential to doing that, then we have to do that. But if we could be much better without being different that would be fine with me. I wanna be much better, I don't care about being different. We'll have to be different in some ways to be much better. But that's the price, wouldn't you agree?"

I think this was before the Think Different campaign though, so Steve obviously knew how to use the "different"-image right.

Edit: Replaced 'xxx 7' by 'Mac OS 7' - IIGS User

OS X is bloatware. Always has been. With Lion, Apple has jumped the shark.

Jobs had good timing.

It's funny. The classic mac I loved, and the X with which I'm comfortable, Jobs in fact always hated.

Jobs always wanted to create works of art. You don't modify works of art. They stand on their own, and have their time (after which, you buy a new one, incidentally.) The (yet incomplete) iOSification of OS X brings Jobs' true aesthetic to the software as well as the hardware. Jobs hated it when I upgraded my mac's RAM. Jobs hated it when I popped a G4 CPU into my beige G3, and again into my B&W G3. Jobs hated it when I installed Kaleidoscope.

Sandboxing? The only reason 3rd party developers can still sell through the app store at all is that Apple simply can't do it all. Jobs would have killed the 3rd party software ecosystem if he could have, just as he killed the clone hardware makers (who made it better and cheaper.)

Yes, OS X is very visually attractive. As are the apps and the high end games.

The drawback is that you never have to exercise your imagination.

When my 2x1Ghz Quicksilver 2002 can't handle oh, say, online banking anymore, I'll probably get a box running Xubuntu. Just for those net things, which Apple machines aren't actually any better at.

I agree with 8bitdad. Our first Mac was a Plus in 1986, and my sense is that back then Apple spent a lot of time marketing the machine as a business machine. Mac versions of Microsoft apps like Excel and Word were better. It had more horsepower AND it was easier to use. 4 megs of RAM, are you kidding me?

I've never really gotten over the transition to OSX. It's pretty and functional, but I don't love it the way I loved Classic, despite its blasted extensions management issues and wretched memory handling.

And Jobs' philosophy of the disposable black box is just abhorrent to me. The rate at which we pump techno-trash into landfills is just sickening. A more ethical approach would be to make as much as possible replaceable and upgradable. Laptop screens and keyboards. Logic boards. The works. In a perfect world, I'd be able to take my Wallstreet G3 case and put the guts of an Macbook in it.

Okay, you asked:

1) OSX sucks. Basic functionality is counterintuitive and mostly retarded, so it's a huge step back from OS9. I mean, they *added* the "Finder" in what, OS 10.4, as if it were something new? And there are dozens of other ridiculous things. And OSX's memory management sucks too, despite everything you always hear about how great it is. Apple should be sued over what it does to your hard drive. Even MS Windows is better that OSX.

2) Someone above mentioned the dark ages for Apple/Mac, which generally means the mid-late 1990s right before Steve Jobs returned. Yet, the best quality computer ever made by any company is probably the Beige G3, manufactured in 1996-98--right before Jobs came back to play with crayons some more.

3) If technology can be evil, the iPad is, e.g. they track you using GPS. Seriously, WTF? And why would anyone pay $400 so they can walk around playing hungry shark? Walk in front of a bus please.

4) New "Macs" are actually not Macs at all--they're PC clones. I mean, they run Windows, but they *won't* run older Mac software! How's that for sick?

Ah, but lots of great software here for my G4 and G5. Thanks Mac Garden.

Mac OS X doesn't suck at all. It's more stable and faster than any version of Windows.

The beige G3 was introduced in November 1997, almost a year after Steve Jobs returned to Apple.

I don't know if I can agree with you that it is the best quality Mac ever, however it IS the model that saved Apple.

Okay, so modern Macs won't run PowerPC or Mac OS 9 applications. What if Apple had continued using the PowerPC platform?

Apple would have made less profit, gotten lesser market share, but had kept the old fans loyal and remained a healthy business. I'm serious. I think the way Apple is moving to right now can only lead to a deep fall. It's spinning faster and faster and faster. If Apple is unlike Microsoft, Dell & else (remember: "Think different") they would have stuck to their roots. It's the question of what your mission is. Increasing shareholder value or building a computer with a different approach, around a loyal community.

Technology-wise, we would have probably seen Apple further maxing out the PowerPC and then jumping on to ARM chips. (my guess)

Would it have been better? As for Apple shareholders - no. As for me, the user - yes.