JOSEPH@RU-BLUE.ARPA (04/11/84)
From: Seymour <JOSEPH@RU-BLUE.ARPA>
Apple's Macintosh Personal Computer:
Some Personal, Preliminary Observations
Gregory A. Marks
Reprinted from the ICPSR MicroNews, February 1984
The Macintosh is a profoundly important computer. It is superior to the
IBM PC in many respects. It is too early to say whether it is the best
choice among available personal computers, but the Mac certainly
deserves very serious attention by anyone interested in or currently
using a personal computer. The Mac incorporates so many advances that
is is impossible to grasp quickly its full potential, to see clearly the
impact it is likely to have. The Mac creates a strong impression within
moments of first seeing it in action, but it is only after hours of
experience with it that a person really comes to understand the full
impact of its design.
The Mac represents a fundamentally different view of what a
computer should be, a view that is very human-oriented rather than
computer-oriented. Start by reminding yourself that what you want from
a computer is the ability to work easily and productively. Furthermore,
you would like to do this at the lowest possible cost. Productive use
requires that good applications software must be available for such
common tasks as writing, drawing graphs and pictures, manipulating and
analyzing data, budget planning and accounting, accessing other
computers, and so on. Ease of use requires proper design in each such
application. Ease of use requires commonality across applications in
how the user does things, and a ability to share text, data and
graphics. Apple has not only given top priority to software, it has
given priority to the manner in which a person uses that software, to
the ultimate "feel" of the system.
Apple has done many other things which endow the Mac with
tremendous potential. The hardware has been designed to be very
inexpensive, considering the power it offers, and reliable. The
software requires a lot of computing power, and a key to the importance
of the Mac is that Apple took the software demands and found a way to
make the underlying hardware at low cost. The goal is to have large
numbers of systems sold. Apple has the capacity to produce over a
million machines a year, and seems prepared to multiply that capacity as
needed.
Apple has had a deliberate strategy of encouraging many
independent software developers to work on products for the Mac. The
major appeal to these vendors is the large potential market for
software, which is easy to see because of the combination of
capabilities and price offered in the Mac. Apple has had Mac prototypes
in the hands of independent software developers, such as Microsoft,
Lotus and PFS, for over a year. There are reported to be over 100
developers at work on Mac software. Many of the current, top-selling
application packages are being revised for release on the Mac, some in
the next few weeks, while others may take 6 to 9 months. Many are being
rewritten to take advantage of the exceptional features offered by the
Mac to make use easier. Apple seems to have made a truly unique effort
to attract a lot of software from many sources, unusually early for such
an innovative system. This further demonstrates that Apple sees the
software, incorporating the user interface, as the top priority.
There has been so much published about the Mac that the basic
facts about the system are widely available and won't be repeated here.
One useful source of such information about the Mac is the first issue
of a new magazine called ST.MAC. The first article in the magazine has
an unfortunate number of factual errors compounded by "hype" but the
other parts are quite good. The piece on Bill Atkinson is absolutely
great. The author of that piece, Doug Clapp, has also written a book
entitled MACINTOSH COMPLETE, published by Softalk books, which is likely
to be worth reading. Of of the best descriptions of how the Mac was
developed is in the March 1 issue of ROLLING STONE. One caution though,
is to go use a Mac rather than just reading about it.
THE MACINTOSH VERSUS THE IBM PC
Having said all the above, the question of interest to many
people is how the Mac should be evaluated in a marketplace now dominated
by the IBM PC. There is no simple overall answer possible, they are
very different in their relative strengths. Each user will have to
weigh his or her own needs.
The most important difference between the Mac and the IBM PC is
the manner in which the systems present themselves to the user, as
already noted. The Mac is almost certainly the best system available
for the first time computer user. The same great care in design will
yield many advantages for the experienced user. There are undoubtedly
some, especially long-time computer users accustomed to the usual
methods of running a system for whom the Mac will seem awkward or too
stylized. There may even be some difference in reaction between
left-brain and right-brain people. Yet overall it seems likely that
most people will find the Mac a much nicer machine to user than the IBM
PC. In broadest possible terms, the selection of a Mac will depend of
how each person reacts to working with it, and whether that reaction is
positive enough to counterbalance the known solid capability of the IBM
PC.
A number of addition points of comparison are covered below,
augmenting the general observation just made.
1) A basic point is that the Mac is not the least bit compatible
with the IBM PC. Everything is different, including the diskettes. If
a person already has a major investment in IBM software, it cannot be
transferred, except perhaps at the conceptual level as new, improved
versions of the same programs become available for the Mac. If files on
IBM diskettes are important, there is a problem since the diskettes are
not interchangeable: a less direct transfer method such as over a
communications line will be required. Apple does not seem interested in
making any accessory that adds IBM compatibility to the Mac, but it is
possible someone else will. In any case, it will probably be too
expensive for most people. Apple's idea is to make the machine as
inexpensive as possible which means avoiding the extra hardware cost of
IBM compatibility and working instead on getting most popular software
converted to native Mac operation.
2) A lot of software is promised for the Mac. Listed here are some
of the packages on the way; those marked with and asterisk are currently
available.
Apple
MacWrite* MacPaint* MacTerminal
MacProject MacBasic MacAssembler
MacDraw MacLogo MacPascal
Microsoft
Multiplan* Word Chart
File Basic*
Lotus
1-2-3
Ashton-Tate
dBase II
Software Publishing
PFS:File
PFS:Report
PFS:Graph
PFS:Write
The IBM PC has a lot of software available, but the Mac will quickly
offer a similar range of choices in terms of the needs of most people,
and in some respects the Mac will be superior as will be discussed next.
3) The Mac has far better graphics display capabilities than the IBM
PC. This is partly a matter of the resolution or detail that may be
shown on the screen, but as with the rest of the machine, most of the
difference is based on software (some of which may be patentable) in a
synergistic relationship with the hardware. The Mac is always operating
in graphics "mode." All the little symbols that appear on the screen,
the ability to mix several different type fonts in the display, and the
ease of handling windows all point to the prowess of the Mac with
graphics. The IBM PC may be desired if color is felt important, since
the Mac has a white on black display, but for most people the Mac
display is far superior.
4) An excellent example of the graphics advantage of the Mac, and a
powerful new tool in its own right, is the MacPaint software. MacPaint
provides a collection of techniques for drawing charts, pictures,
diagrams, figures or editing such materials into documents produced by
other software. It does for drawing what word processors have done for
writing. It is really a wonderful tool. You would have to invest a lot
of money in accessories for an IBM PC to come close to matching
MacPaint.
5) An integral part of the design of the user interface for the
Mac is the mouse, a palm-sized box that you roll around on a table-top
to move the cursor on the screen of the Mac. The mouse also has a push
button which is pressed to issue commands. The mouse allows very fast
and accurate pointing at any spot on the screen. This really has to be
experienced to be understood, but it makes selection of commands, text
editing and graphical manipulations all quite quick and easy.
It is possible to buy a mouse to add to an IBM PC, but it will work with
only a limited set of software, and none of that software as yet has the
integration and quality found in that on the Mac. The closest available
is the Visi-On series, but the total cost of an IBM system is then far
above the Mac.
6) Of course the mouse is used only part of the time, and another
important aspect of how the Mac feels to the user is the keyboard. It
has a typewriter-like layout, avoiding the several serious problems in
the IBM PC layout, its simplicity is also a help to first-time users.
It does not include a separate numeric keypad; that is available as an
accessory at extra cost. The touch of the keyboard is just fine, so
that the Mac overall is better for typing that the IBM PC.
7) One reason for the graphics superiority of the Mac is that it is
inherently roughly twice as fast at processing as the IBM PC. In some
graphics operations it is even faster. On the other hand the IBM PC
does offer the option of a math co processor chip, the 8087, which can
make the IBM PC faster for numerical computations. There will be a lot
of debate over the next year as to whether the effective speed as seen
by the user is greater on the Mac or the IBM PC. One reason why the IBM
may appear faster is that many tasks on it never involve any graphics
processing while everything on the Mac does. Thus a word processor on
the Mac may appear relatively slow at scrolling text because it is
always in graphics mode to allow for multiple type fonts and the
inclusion of graphics; the Mac software is doing far more work than
would a word processor on an IBM PC.
8) As already noted, the Mac has a "different" disk. It uses a 3.5
inch diskette designed and manufactured by Sony, modified to meet the
special requirements of Apple. It stores 400,000 bytes. The disk has a
hard shell and a slide to cover the read/write opening. These disks are
much more resistant to errors of handling than the earlier 5 inch and 8
inch sizes. The disk drive always signals the Mac system when a
diskette is inserted, and the user must give a command to the system to
have the Mac eject the disk. The overall result is a much easier,
safer, and more controlled disk system for the user. One question which
cannot yet be answered is the relative speed of the Mac disks compared
to the IBM.
The lack of compatibility with IBM disks may be a real problem for some
users. The 3.5 inch disk is probably a superior design but the 5 inch
format of the IBM diskettes is widely useful for exchange between many
different systems. Because the disk drives are modified to meet special
Apple requirements, it is probably going to be quite a while before
anyone but Apple offers drives that can handle the Apple disks, thus
compounding the compatibility problem.
9) The degree to which a second disk drive is needed on a Mac is as
yet unclear. Certainly, the design of the box implies that a lot of
work may be done without a second disk drive. Much of the Operating
System is already in ROM (a form of permanent memory inside the
machine), and the remainder of the Operating System (mostly for
printing) need be loaded only once. Since the disks are under software
control it may be possible to operate with less chance of error when
swapping disks in a single-drive system than with an IBM PC. This is an
area that awaits more practical experience. Since Apple is not
delivering the outboard second disk as yet, there may be plenty of
chance to get that practical experience.
10) There is no winchester or hard disk available from Apple for the
Mac, so there is no direct analog for the IBM PC/XT. However, Davong
and Tecmar say they will announce hard disks in the next few months, and
Apple plans to have one late in the year. Another question is what
level or performance will be possible with the hard disks. They could
be anything from very fast to very slow.
11) The Mac has much of the hardware functionality built-in which on
the IBM PC can only be obtained if the owner buys additional boards and
plugs them in the expansion slots. But the Mac has not expansion slots
because that saves money and creates a standard environment for which to
design software.
The Mac instead has two very fast serial ports which may be used to
connect external devices. These ports may be used to connect common
RS-232 devices such as a modem. But these ports use a non-standard
connector because of space limitations in the Mac, so that a "normal"
modem cable for example, will not fit. This is only a matter of a few
dollars, but it will be a nuisance. These two ports may also be used to
connect much fancier devices, using what are known as RS-422
conventions. Depending on the sophistication of the external device,
these ports will permit transmission of between 30,000 characters per
second and 125,000 characters per second. This offers the possibility
of such things as a low-cost but fairly fast local network between Mac
systems. Apple claims that this approach will allow companies to make
add-ons for the Mac at attractive and competitive prices. It seems to
be a sensible set of trade-offs.
12) A related matter is the amount of memory in the Mac. You can
have any amount you want as long as its 128k. There is no choice. This
is about as much as most software for an IBM PC needs, especially when
it is recognized that most of the Mac Operating System is stored in
another 64k of ROM in the machine. Further, the quality of the
programming of that ROM is very high, such that the Mac may be roughly
equivalent to an IBM PC with between 192k and 256k of RAM. An
interesting test will be to see how Lotus 1-2-3 runs and what its
capacity is on the Mac, in comparison to the IBM PC
By the end of 1984 it should be possible to buy a Mac with 512K of RAM.
Whether there will be any form of upgrade path from the current machines
is unclear. For people who must have more memory now, the new Lisa 2
will run all the Mac software and has 512k of memory. Overall, the
restriction to 128k on the Mac may be a disadvantage compared to the IBM
PC, for users whose applications need the extra memory, but these people
should also then consider the Lisa.
13) A bonus with the Mac is that it is small, light and quiet.
There is no fan, so it does not intrude during conversations or while
listening to music. The Mac takes up about the area of a magazine on
the desk top, so it is easy to place, especially since the keyboard is
separate and may be located as desired independent of the main unit.
Everything except the accessory printer fits in a carrying case and
weighs about 20 pounds in total, which compares very well with such
portables as the IBM-like Compaq at over 30 pounds. There is an
optional security kit which may be used to lock the machine down if
theft is a potential problem. In total, it is much less obtrusive and
much handier than the IBM PC or almost any other system of anything
approaching the same capability.
14) It seems likely that the Mac will prove to be more reliable than
the IBM PC. There are far fewer parts, connectors and wires inside the
Mac than the PC, which is one common indicator of greater reliability.
Most of the components inside the Mac are soldered in place, which also
should help.
A summary of how the Mac and the IBM PC compare: the IBM PC is a
know entity, with lots of software and capacity for growth in hardware
and software over the next several years. The Mac seems for most people
a much more pleasant system to use, and may even bring out strong
positive emotional reactions. An educated guess is that the Mac will
more than match the IBM PC in software capability in the later half of
this year and will widen the gap after that. They are both very sound
choices with the Mac having a strong edge for graphics and excitement.
That raises the question of whether IBM will produce a new
machine that will match or surpass the Mac. It seems unlikely for at
least a year, and probably much longer. The PCjr is such a poor value,
with a substandard keyboard that really prevents rapid typing that one
must wonder about the people who are running IBM. It is certainly
possible for IBM to build a system that is quite compatible with the
current PC and runs two to four times faster, has improved graphics, and
deliver it sometime this year. However, to take advantage of the
improved graphics in the way the Mac does, major changes would have to
be made to existing software by the original developers. There seems to
be some prospect that IBM will move away from MS-DOS as the operating
system, further complicating the compatibility problem. Furthermore,
there is plenty of reason to expect that IBM will leave the current PC
on the market for a good while longer, so that a new machine would be
higher in price. Overall, for anyone who really like s the feel of the
Macintosh, it seems likely there will be no alternative from IBM at
least not soon.
GENERAL
The Macintosh does not have any ability to run Apple ][
software. It probably never will. This would have raised the price and
increased the size too much. The Mac is really focused on doing the new
technology right, and this was one hard choice they had to make. There
undoubtedly will be new systems in the Apple ][ family so that although
separate, the Apple ][ has many years left.
The Mac is not a programmer's delight yet. There are no tools
today except Basic from Microsoft. MacBasic and and interpreted Pascal
are said to be coming in the next few months. If the stories about them
are right, they will be great tools for learning and doing small tasks.
Serious tools should appear mid-year. Before that, the main path for
major work is to use a Lisa for writing the software using Pascal or
Assembler, and move the disk to the Mac for running.
The ImageWriter dot matrix printer from Apple is a very good
companion to the Mac. It reproduces all the different type faces and
graphics at a very reasonable price. It is probably not possible to
connect any other printer to a Mac and obtain the same capability. The
full power of the Mac is best realized by using the ImageWriter.
SUMMARY
The Macintosh is going to create a lot of excitement over the
coming months. It will not displace the IBM PC in many business
setting, or at least not right away. It will have to be proven a boon
to productivity before it is safe in the business community. The IBM PC
will continue to do well with academic users, partly because some
environments will need to ensure compatibility between new and old
machines, partly because some applications are done better on the IBM,
partly because IBM is safe, and partly because the Mac has a style and
some people may not like it. But the Mac is profoundly new, different
and for many people it is far better than anything available before.
The Mac has forever changed the nature of how the computer feels to the
user.
It is a great system for both the naive first-time user and for
the old-time sophisticate. It will interest a lot of people who have
not been at all involved with computers before. It will inspire people
who like to write software in a way that the Apple ][ and the IBM PC
never have. The Mac will probably do extremely well in the academic
world. We should all be grateful for the Macintosh because it will
force everybody including IBM to really pay attention to the usability
of systems. The Mac sets a new standard of comparison, you should
become familiar with it.
-------ir44@sdccs6.UUCP (04/15/84)
True, the article on Macintosh is well written but not balanced and covers little new ground compared with previous discussions on the net. I'm one of those mentioned who tried the Mac with great interest and reacted negatively. It is set up to appeal to the very large market of novices who are not at ease in slamming a keyboard. For me, and I'm a user, not a tech type, the mouse seemed more of an encumbrance rather than a facilitator except in Macpaint. The approach seemed gimmicky, designed to impress the computer-wary that all you need to know is where to point. Pointing to a pictograph seems to me regressive. Novices drawn in by such devices will find, as soon as they want to do anything serious with their computer, that there is far more to learn than they ever suspected. For real word processing, the built in stuff on ROM will soon be left behind for one of the usual packages. One used to using a good terminal will feel constrained by a 9" screen. Having windows is also somewhat a gimmick when they are too small to hold enough to be useful for many serious uses such as writing a new draft from a previous draft, independently scrollable. The article does not mention the limitation from lack of true multitasking- more and more used in sophisticated packages. Lack of color is mentioned but passed over though its use seems to be increasingly important in consumer software. It's lack, though I am not much interested in color myself, may severely limit the Mac's appeal for a computer that is so graphically oriented that it runs in a constant graphic mode. The author did point out the limitations in treating text (invariably) as a graphic. I'm not particularly interested in defending the IBM PC-- I don't own one (yet). It is a puzzlement that the company that gave us the Selectric typewriters, should produce two keyboards that have evoked such critical derision. But IBM's conservative design produces a micro that is fairly easily expandable and upgradable. It is evolving as various more powerful and special purpose boards become available. If I were a PC user, I would feel reasonably reassured against quick obsolescence or getting left out of the next major improvement in the PC-- e.g., an x286 based upgrade and a move to Unix. Can an IBM XT owner, for example, expect to be able to upgrade to the next level of PC development? The things I've mentioned that do not enthrall me about the Mac, may be part of a correct marketing strategy and certainly, the price is right. What would one design in a micro if the goal were not sales in the millions of units? Ted Schwartz, Anthro UCSD
twltims@watmath.UUCP (Tracy Tims) (04/17/84)
From: ir44@sdccs6.UUCP
. . . I'm one of those mentioned who tried
the Mac with great interest and reacted negatively. It is
set up to appeal to the very large market of novices who are
not at ease in slamming a keyboard.
I think you are correct in saying that Apple's *marketing* is designed
to appeal to novices. However. . .
For me, and I'm a user, not a tech type,
I am a tech type (and a user: If I can do something with a computer
rather than on paper, that's how I do it. I have slammed keyboards for
years.)
the mouse seemed more of an encumbrance
rather than a facilitator except in Macpaint. The approach
seemed gimmicky, designed to impress the computer-wary that
all you need to know is where to point.
and I went to have a little fun with a Mac. I wasn't able to pull myself
away from the machine for four hours. In those four hours I was able to
convince myself that I would be able to do many valuable things on the Mac
faster and more elegantly that I can do them on most other systems I have
seen.
Pointing to a pictograph seems to me regressive. Novices drawn
in by such devices will find, as soon as they want to do anything
serious with their computer, that there is far more to learn
than they ever suspected.
You are the first person I have ever heard call the iconic interface
``regressive''. I suspect that it will be a great productivity booster.
What do you mean ``there is far more to learn?'' It strikes me that there
are different ways of learning. With troff, I switch fonts using baroque
commands that I must memorize to be efficient. With Mac, I can still
switch fonts, but I use the same procedures to do it that I use to change
point size. And if I forget the name of a font, it doesn't matter. My
total font handling effort on a Mac is noticeably lower. And I have been
using troff for 4 years.
For real word processing, the
built in stuff on ROM will soon be left behind for one of
the usual packages.
As far as I know, the built in stuff on ROM is fairly general. I think
a variety of editors could use them, and provide significantly different
``looks''. Macwrite is a toy editor, but still useable. The Macintosh
editor I would avoid like the plague is the one that will look like Vi.
``Usual packages'' rarely impress me. VM/CMS and Fortran are examples
of popular ``usual packages''.
One used to using a good terminal will
feel constrained by a 9" screen.
Wrong. I am a living counterexample. It's just fine.
Having windows is also
somewhat a gimmick when they are too small to hold enough to
be useful for many serious uses such as writing a new draft
from a previous draft, independently scrollable.
Nonsense. I am an Emacs fan, and I use it on a 24x80 terminal. It's
incredibly useful, even though a window takes up the entire screen width.
On the Mac, one can generate small windows with messages, statuses,
commands, etc. that won't collide with your main text windows. Gimmick
indeed. How can you call variable sized, instantly creatable, overlapping
terminals a ``gimmick''? I'd have no trouble with the revision of a rough
draft in another window. I know: I've done it.
The article does not mention the limitation from lack of true
multitasking- more and more used in sophisticated packages.
The Mac doesn't lack multitasking, per se. Since it doesn't have much
of an operating system it doesn't have much of an operating system to
implement multitasking in. Applications that need multitasking, or
program environments that would like to exploit it, can do it themselves.
Lack of color is mentioned but passed over though its use
seems to be increasingly important in consumer software.
It's lack, though I am not much interested in color myself,
may severely limit the Mac's appeal for a computer that is
so graphically oriented that it runs in a constant graphic
mode. The author did point out the limitations in treating
text (invariably) as a graphic.
I suspect that people are overly concerned with color. The point is that
the ``gimmicky'' windows and ``regressive'' icons are so valuable to
folks like me that we willingly overlook color in order to gain them
at a reasonable price. Apple ]['s have color, but who cares?
I'm not particularly interested in defending the IBM PC--
I don't own one (yet). It is a puzzlement that the company
that gave us the Selectric typewriters, should produce two
keyboards that have evoked such critical derision. But IBM's
conservative design produces a micro that is fairly easily
expandable and upgradable.
And completely uninteresting. I can get that sort of interface in
spades on the UNIX systems I have access to. Any computer that I
buy is going to have to offer me something I can't get for free.
I know (after a lengthy test-compute) that a Mac will be a joy to run
(mostly) and a productivity booster *worth the price*. An IBM PC
represents yesterdays understanding of computer<->user interaction.
It is evolving as various more
powerful and special purpose boards become available. If I
were a PC user, I would feel reasonably reassured against
quick obsolescence or getting left out of the next major
improvement in the PC-- e.g., an x286 based upgrade and a
move to Unix. Can an IBM XT owner, for example, expect to be
able to upgrade to the next level of PC development? . . .
Ted Schwartz, Anthro UCSD
And for every piece of software written for it you will need a different
hardware configuration. In contrast EVERY Mac program knows it gets
a bit mapped display, fonts, mouse, sound and more. An excellent level
of support on every single Mac.
I do not know Ted Schwartz, so the following comment obviously cannot
apply to him.
So far, I am aware of two reactions to Mac. Some people like it, and
others don't. Here at the University of Waterloo, among people who are
persuing computer science as a profession (or way of life!) the Mac has
generated amazing enthusiasm. Many of my friends (tech types with lots
of years sweating at keyboards) are scheming to get one. This reaction
seems fairly common in CS people. Also, in people who really are novices,
there is a strong appreciation of a machine that can be quickly used without
years of study.
The people who I have heard objecting seem to be crossover folk: people
in other disciplines who have enough awareness of computers that they
are not simple users but who still do not make computer science their
profession. Perhaps their sense of achievement with computers is threatened
with the advent of cheap and effective metaphorical interfaces that
*any old joe* can handle. Whadda *you* think?
Tracy Tims {linus,allegra,decvax,utcsrgv}!watmath!twltims
The University of Waterloo, 519-885-1211 x2730mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) (04/18/84)
When the Mac was first announced officially, and could be seen here,
the people with most immediately enthusiastic responses were precisely
those people who have been deeply into computers for years. They could
appreciate the wonder of the Mac faster than the "users" (non-novice but
non-wizard). Having been involved with computers for 30 years now, I
found myself with that quick "This is a real machine -- it's RIGHT" reaction.
After 6 weeks of using one, my main finding is that now my writings
have many more figures in them and are easier to read. No programming
support yet, but what a joy it is to use the things that are there.
Programming will come.
--
Martin Taylor
{allegra,linus,ihnp4,uw-beaver,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt