There's a lot of good and bad with any OS. While the classic Mac OS was very simple to use, it was also extremely fragile. How many times did you have to rebuild the Desktop file? The Suitcase file? How many times did your Mac simply forget what program or file was associated with it due to a corrupt or missing resource fork? How many times did you have to reboot your system because one program completely blew up everything in memory? I'll answer all of the above for you. ALL. THE. TIME. I worked with classic Macs then and still do today. And it can be frustrating as hell. And let's face it, unless you had wads of money to throw around, you couldn't begin to afford a truly powerful Mac. Price is the main reason PC's became the de-facto home standard. Lower price meant more of an installed base which led to more software support. Now, on the other hand, had you paid for a new Mac back then, you just might be using it for far longer than a PC. But that's just the hardware. Apple software has never been known for its longevity in terms of OS and app compatibility. It's a constant moving target that's made even worse today with the App Store and Apple's now obvious planned obsolescence. in both hardware and software. And with the current direction Apple is going with both their hardware and software, they could very well be near the end of offering a truly useful computing experience. They like their consumer market much better than their creative market. And unfortunately, that's pretty much across the board with all the main companies. We don't have many creators any more, mostly consumers. And the simpler the machine, the better in their eyes.
I can't say that I had to rebuild my Desktop file more that two or three times in the years that I used Classic MacOS. My first Mac was a Quadra 840av and then I got a PowerMac 8100/80 and both worked extremely well. Restarting because of programs freezing the system, oh yes! Way too often. But compared to being in the PC world, the Mac was a dream system. No more DOS, no more hardware-software conflicts. No more trying to figure out devices. No malware waiting on every corner. On the Mac any software took minutes to load and generally worked the first time. NuBus cards worked! It was such a relief to get away from the PC world. But, I definately agree with you about the Apple of today. Steve Jobs wanted Apple to be more like Sony, and he got his wish. I hate the direction Apple is taking now. Apple is all about its iPhone, consumer market and the app stores. I am still using Snow Leopard to this day (with no ill effect) and won't by another Mac made after 2010 until they change. Thinner and thinner with fewer and fewer ports and no DVD drive but same prices was it for me. Plus, no one needs more powerful systems anymore, systems need more powerful users. People don't know how to do a tenth of what their computers and software can do today!
Windows 3.1/95/98/ME were no more stable than classic Mac OS. And these days you can pretty much guarantee 7 years of free software updates for a brand new Mac. Or 10-12 years if you use patches to get things running.
@@Gamer208010 As a retro hobbyist now, I think I'm qualified to say that, based on my own observations: 1. I spent nearly 20 years on DOS, Windows 3.1, and Windows 9x, while I've spent far less time on System 6 on a Mac SE as a kid and Mac OS 9 on a couple of vintage macs as an adult, so I can't say whether Mac OS handles HFS better than DOS or Windows 9x handle FAT but, the existence of things like the AutoFlush extension certainly suggest its use of the filesystem is more fragile. Given an entire childhood of DOS and Windows 9x without anything worse than a lost chain or two in some file I was in the process of editing, which didn't mess with the OS, I can say their filesystem handling was robust in the ways that mattered. (Which is quite a feat, given what a house of cards the Registry is even today.) 2. As far as extensions go, classic Mac OS is more fragile than Windows 9x, but it's MUCH easier to repair than anything Microsoft produced prior to system restore points and STILL easier to fix in a more selective way than a brute-force rollback because you can boot with extensions off and then temporarily or permanently uninstall your self-contained system extensions via drag-and-drop.
I recently found a vectra vl 2 in the trash and decided to give it a new life with a new 3 giga hd. never used win 3.1 and it' s terrible!! i think also mac os 1 is so better than this. my lc 475 seems a future machine compared to this. i like the vectra cause it's funny and a good 486 dos machine, but there's no comparison at all! only thing i miss in the mac is the IDE
Very enjoyable video. The presenter is mostly correct with these statement while missing the most important point entirely. No one cared/cares about consistency or even general ease of use. Every one of these little nitpicks was easily worked around and not worth the outrageous premium prices and proprietary lock in of Apple's platform.
That isn't really true. I started using Macs in 1993 because, One - 32-bit System 7 with Quicktime allowed you to play and record video which wasn't possible on 16-bit Windows 3.1. Two - it was way easier to learn and start getting something done because I never had to do DOS. Three - I had zero interest in being a techie and just wanted to do my writing, video, and 3D. When you installed new software or hardware on the Mac there were no IRQ, sound, or video card conflicts and hours of trouble shooting. Plug and play (nubus cards) was a reality on the Mac and still merely a dream on a PC. PC's are far better today but have always followed the Mac as the example to live up to. I remember working at CompUsa years ago listening to the PC guys talking about the $1000+ worth of upgrades that they wanted to make to their computers to essentially equal what came with every Mac. I would ask them, 'Why don't you just get a Mac?' They would always say 'Macs are too expensive!'. I would just smile and shake my head. I eventually realized that many (not all) PC people ARE techies and toying with the hardware is part of their fun.
@@Darimonde You took the key strokes right out of my fingers. It was especially true back then that you more or less got what you paid for. I know the Amiga existed and could emulate the Macintosh System, but that's only a software workaround and does not make up for the hardware.
In 1993 my dad gave me a choice... Mac or PC? I chose wrong and got the crappy Packard Bell that broke.
"The only thing that changes are the competitors. First it was NeXT..." Given what eventually happened, I guess Apple lost that battle (sort of).
So Apple were doomed already in 1991! Back then, they were actually right. Now there's iPhone to save them.
Anyone else think the guy looks like he's just reading from a script to the left of the camera? Particularly at the start?
Also that is an awesome looking CD-ROM drive at 4:00
Apple CDROM-SC a 1x cady loading Sony mechinisam.
good to remember all this, sir !
There's a lot of good and bad with any OS. While the classic Mac OS was very simple to use, it was also extremely fragile. How many times did you have to rebuild the Desktop file? The Suitcase file? How many times did your Mac simply forget what program or file was associated with it due to a corrupt or missing resource fork? How many times did you have to reboot your system because one program completely blew up everything in memory? I'll answer all of the above for you. ALL. THE. TIME. I worked with classic Macs then and still do today. And it can be frustrating as hell. And let's face it, unless you had wads of money to throw around, you couldn't begin to afford a truly powerful Mac. Price is the main reason PC's became the de-facto home standard. Lower price meant more of an installed base which led to more software support. Now, on the other hand, had you paid for a new Mac back then, you just might be using it for far longer than a PC. But that's just the hardware. Apple software has never been known for its longevity in terms of OS and app compatibility. It's a constant moving target that's made even worse today with the App Store and Apple's now obvious planned obsolescence. in both hardware and software. And with the current direction Apple is going with both their hardware and software, they could very well be near the end of offering a truly useful computing experience. They like their consumer market much better than their creative market. And unfortunately, that's pretty much across the board with all the main companies. We don't have many creators any more, mostly consumers. And the simpler the machine, the better in their eyes.
Apple used to sell almost free Macs to school.
I can't say that I had to rebuild my Desktop file more that two or three times in the years that I used Classic MacOS. My first Mac was a Quadra 840av and then I got a PowerMac 8100/80 and both worked extremely well. Restarting because of programs freezing the system, oh yes! Way too often. But compared to being in the PC world, the Mac was a dream system. No more DOS, no more hardware-software conflicts. No more trying to figure out devices. No malware waiting on every corner. On the Mac any software took minutes to load and generally worked the first time. NuBus cards worked! It was such a relief to get away from the PC world.
But, I definately agree with you about the Apple of today. Steve Jobs wanted Apple to be more like Sony, and he got his wish. I hate the direction Apple is taking now. Apple is all about its iPhone, consumer market and the app stores. I am still using Snow Leopard to this day (with no ill effect) and won't by another Mac made after 2010 until they change. Thinner and thinner with fewer and fewer ports and no DVD drive but same prices was it for me. Plus, no one needs more powerful systems anymore, systems need more powerful users. People don't know how to do a tenth of what their computers and software can do today!
Windows 3.1/95/98/ME were no more stable than classic Mac OS. And these days you can pretty much guarantee 7 years of free software updates for a brand new Mac. Or 10-12 years if you use patches to get things running.
@@Gamer208010 As a retro hobbyist now, I think I'm qualified to say that, based on my own observations:
1. I spent nearly 20 years on DOS, Windows 3.1, and Windows 9x, while I've spent far less time on System 6 on a Mac SE as a kid and Mac OS 9 on a couple of vintage macs as an adult, so I can't say whether Mac OS handles HFS better than DOS or Windows 9x handle FAT but, the existence of things like the AutoFlush extension certainly suggest its use of the filesystem is more fragile. Given an entire childhood of DOS and Windows 9x without anything worse than a lost chain or two in some file I was in the process of editing, which didn't mess with the OS, I can say their filesystem handling was robust in the ways that mattered. (Which is quite a feat, given what a house of cards the Registry is even today.)
2. As far as extensions go, classic Mac OS is more fragile than Windows 9x, but it's MUCH easier to repair than anything Microsoft produced prior to system restore points and STILL easier to fix in a more selective way than a brute-force rollback because you can boot with extensions off and then temporarily or permanently uninstall your self-contained system extensions via drag-and-drop.
They let this guy do a whole presentation without someone telling him that he was looking at the wrong camera
I recently found a vectra vl 2 in the trash and decided to give it a new life with a new 3 giga hd. never used win 3.1 and it' s terrible!! i think also mac os 1 is so better than this. my lc 475 seems a future machine compared to this. i like the vectra cause it's funny and a good 486 dos machine, but there's no comparison at all! only thing i miss in the mac is the IDE
Very enjoyable video.
The presenter is mostly correct with these statement while missing the most important point entirely. No one cared/cares about consistency or even general ease of use. Every one of these little nitpicks was easily worked around and not worth the outrageous premium prices and proprietary lock in of Apple's platform.
That isn't really true. I started using Macs in 1993 because, One - 32-bit System 7 with Quicktime allowed you to play and record video which wasn't possible on 16-bit Windows 3.1. Two - it was way easier to learn and start getting something done because I never had to do DOS. Three - I had zero interest in being a techie and just wanted to do my writing, video, and 3D. When you installed new software or hardware on the Mac there were no IRQ, sound, or video card conflicts and hours of trouble shooting. Plug and play (nubus cards) was a reality on the Mac and still merely a dream on a PC. PC's are far better today but have always followed the Mac as the example to live up to. I remember working at CompUsa years ago listening to the PC guys talking about the $1000+ worth of upgrades that they wanted to make to their computers to essentially equal what came with every Mac. I would ask them, 'Why don't you just get a Mac?' They would always say 'Macs are too expensive!'. I would just smile and shake my head. I eventually realized that many (not all) PC people ARE techies and toying with the hardware is part of their fun.
@@Darimonde You took the key strokes right out of my fingers. It was especially true back then that you more or less got what you paid for. I know the Amiga existed and could emulate the Macintosh System, but that's only a software workaround and does not make up for the hardware.