>The only problem with Microsoft is they just have no taste. They have absolutely no taste. And I don't mean that in a small way, I mean that in a big way, in the sense that they don't think of original ideas, and they don't bring much culture into their products.
Was he right?
Why do you care about such opinions?
You could be writing some epic code now.
>>54137215
I am a student of computer history
>>54137195
The only problem with Apple is they just have no taste. They have absolutely no taste. And I don't mean that in a small way, I mean that in a big way, in the sense that they don't think of original ideas, and they don't bring much culture into their products.
He's pretty true but there's nothing wrong with that. Boring, businessy and stable products are always better than plasticky colorful gimmicks that last 2/3 years tops.
Fuck you Steve. XP default background and title.wma is more beautiful than anything ever coming out of apple.
And you never had remarkably good ideas compared with other nerds or designers. They are at best decent. The only difference is you had a multi-billion dollar company and the authoritive position within said company to pursue your shitty vision and others did not.
Fuck off.
>>54137433
>XP default background and title.wma
Right in the feels
Gates should never have let Ballmer be in charge when left, he's the one who ruined everything
>>54138066
DEVELOPERS
DEVELOPERS
DEVELOPERS
>>54137433
>defending microsoft
t-they're the good guys n-now!!
>>54137289
>[Apple doesn't] think of original ideas
Uh, didn't they pretty much invent the whole concept of the tablet?
>>54137195
>first made it on the map porting BASIC (i.e. someone else's work) to early microcomputers
>made billions licensing IBM a CP/M clone they bought for a song, rather than wrote themselves
>followed closely behind Apple in taking advantage of Xerox's complacence and disinterest in graphical interfaces
>built NT on OS/2 source code and the sweat and tears of poached VMS engineers from DEC
>absolutely tasteless anti-competitive behavior throughout the '90s
>generally follows design trends, never starts them
>generally follows market trends, never starts them
>sells chiefly to businesses and enterprises
I agree.
But honestly, I kind of liked that austere, unoriginal and stiffly professional culture both they and IBM possessed throughout the '80s and '90s, just like I find something to love about 68k-era Apple.
>>54137433
>being this much of a nostalgiatard
XP was an ugly, pandering piece of shit that set Microsoft's new precedent of taking whatever Apple was doing at the time and somehow fucking it up even harder. I'll take Puma over that teletubby shit any day.
The classic interface, of course, was another story. Very professional, well designed, and instantly recognizable, though I always thought Mac OS could do a lot more with a smaller screen.
>>54139710
>porting BASIC to a computer they've never had their hands on, and having it work on the first try
>somehow not an achievement
>>54139983
I never said anything they did wasn't a significant achievement, I was just agreeing with the OP statement that what they did generally wasn't all that original or innovative.
>>54139552
No, the modern tablet was pretty much made by Microsoft, and the sole concept of a tablet comes from IBM and Xerox, Apple only made them mainstream
They have a culture, it's just a shitty sterile one that fucks customers in the ass.
>>54139983
>>54140103
But to add to this, it's not really like this is some awe-inspiring feat considering they could just simulate the hardware (which they did on a PDP-10) since there was nothing very "proprietary" about early S-100 boxes, especially something so basic as a typical Altair.
>>54140142
Not really, they were pretty late to the tablet/pen computing game, and even then those tablets weren't really modern tablets, they're tablet PCs, which are a totally different ballgame.
Apple still probably wins out on this one with the Newton MessagePad, I can't think of any earlier tablets that weren't just Windows/DOS laptops with a stylus.
>>54139552
>>54140142
apple didn't invent the concept, but they essentially made the best one to exist
>>54140362
>but they essentially made the best one to exist
niceme.me
>>54140322
>Not really, they were pretty late to the tablet/pen computing game, and even then those tablets weren't really modern tablets, they're tablet PCs, which are a totally different ballgame.
They're either graphics tablets or tablet computers. iPads are just tablet PCs with a castrated OS
>>54137195
https://youtu.be/9nfgRf2A0Tc
>>54137195
>Was he right?
Gates admitted as much.
"But we have all the money," was his reply.
>>54141539
Why is Bill so based?
>>54140702
Those are quite different from tablet PCs both in their implementation and their intended use case.
I wasn't talking about iPads anyway.
>>54137195
>and they don't bring much culture into their products.
Computers and software don't need culture or taste. They need to accomplish their intended function as efficiently as possible. Function over form, not vice versa. Steve was so cancerous (hyuck) because he looked at computers as needing to be, on some level, art. They are not art. They are tools.
>>54142073
Don't you want to be a code artisan and a freedom activist sempai?
>>54140206
You're talking about Apple right?
>>54141840
This is a misquote you moron, go back to tumblr
>>54142073
>Function over form, not vice versa.
I don't get you people, why can't they be both? Why do you think putting effort into your product beyond throwing some garbage taiwanese parts in a box and selling it at bottom dollar to appeal to the lowest common denominator requires compromise?
Hell, it was that form AND function that gave the Macintosh a niche in the first place, there was no better desktop publishing kit (outside the cost-no-object workstation world of systems like the Star and PERQ) than a Macintosh and a Laserwriter.
steve jobs is dead guys
fucking steve jobs is dead
>>54142369
Well I'd like to both not be fat and also sit around drinking beer all day, but I can't do both. Apple loves to compromise function in the name of form. Shitty keyboards, no ports, bad cooling, no expandability, all functional things that Apple sacrificed on the altar of thinness uber alles when making the Macbook. Steve Jobs once famously demanded that the motherboard of the Apple II be redesigned because he thought the way the memory chips on it were arranged wasn't aesthetically pleasing. So they redesigned it according to his taste, and it didn't work properly. That tells you all you need to know.
>>54142446
>Well I'd like to both not be fat and also sit around drinking beer all day, but I can't do both.
What does this have to do with electronics design?
>Apple loves to compromise function in the name of form. Shitty keyboards, no ports, bad cooling, no expandability, all functional things that Apple sacrificed on the altar of thinness uber alles when making the Macbook.
This recent trend is the fault of cynical engineering, cost cutting, and Jobs' post-merger war on the professional market, not the idea of "form" itself. Not everything that looks good is a MacBook (and why do people even think those ugly aluminum abominations are the apex of design in computing?) and Apple in particular designed many wonderful looking "functional" systems during the snow white era that would put the average gaming shitbox today to utter shame.
> Steve Jobs once famously demanded that the motherboard of the Apple II be redesigned because he thought the way the memory chips on it were arranged wasn't aesthetically pleasing. So they redesigned it according to his taste, and it didn't work properly. That tells you all you need to know.
And? What damaging impact did this extra step in a process that was already likely full of very minor revisions make to the very successful Apple II line?
Microsoft was started by a rich, spoiled brat who cared more about money than good products.
Apple was started by a hippie/designer who wanted to make the best possible computers that would enrich the lives of their users and change the world.
Both were megalomaniacal assholes.
>>54142761
>wanted to make the best possible computers that would enrich the lives of their users and change the world.
niceme.me
>>54142637
>What does this have to do with electronics design?
Are you dense? You said "just do both", to which my answer is that you can't do both, more of one means less of the other.
>and Apple in particular designed many wonderful looking "functional" systems during the snow white era that would put the average gaming shitbox today to utter shame.
Compatibility, expandability, and repairability are functional attributes that Apple has been hostile to ever since the Mac replaced the Apple II. You can swap out any piece of that "gaming shitbox" that you care to. Want a new motherboard? Half a dozen companies with a hundred different models. Any RAM works. any graphics card works. Any hard drive works. You don't have to buy Apple-approved anything. Nor Microsoft-approved anything, even. You get any ports or connectivity you please (remember how Apple just hated the idea of USB in the 90s, and tried to insist on firewire-only?) For that matter, if you care about form over function, those gaming shitboxes will give you a choice over what form you want, instead of just what some pretentious designer at Apple thinks you should want. As much or as little rice as you please, in any form factor from ITX to EATX.
>And? What damaging impact did this extra step in a process that was already likely full of very minor revisions make to the very successful Apple II line?
It demonstrates that Jobs didn't care about the true purpose of the machine, which is how well it could crunch numbers. He cared about how it looked. He was an ad-man, a marketer. (I say the word "marketer" with every bit of the contempt you imagine) All sizzle and no steak. He didn't want to sell you the best tool he could make, he wanted to sell you a "lifestyle product", like so much worthless expensive junk at the Sharper Image store.
>>54142833
#REKT
![42766[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/3AV5uhF.jpg "42766[1].jpg")
>>54142761
>>54142913
>tim cuck
>aids
>better battery life
kek
>>54140142
touch screen was invented at CERN then the big companies thought sweet free money don't have to pay IP thanks science goys
>>54142833
>Are you dense? You said "just do both", to which my answer is that you can't do both, more of one means less of the other.
And I said it didn't.
>Compatibility
Go check out Macintosh Garden sometime, the platform had a massive native software base.
>expandability
Three to six slots depending on form factor, up to seven devices on each individual SCSI bus and a huge range of NuBus/PCI expansion cards and storage devices to fill them was somehow not enough?
>repairability
Now you're just showing off your ignorance, we're not talking about the OnePort shitbooks, and we never were.
> You can swap out any piece of that "gaming shitbox" that you care to.
You could do the same with most non-consumer Macintosh models, and even the consumer models in the case of the era we're discussing.
>Any RAM works. any graphics card works. Any hard drive works. You don't have to buy Apple-approved anything.
You don't really have to either except for video cards due to their use of bullshit proprietary ROMs
>For that matter, if you care about form over function, those gaming shitboxes will give you a choice over what form you want, instead of just what some pretentious designer at Apple thinks you should want. As much or as little rice as you please, in any form factor from ITX to EATX.
Now you're just crying and whining.
>It demonstrates that Jobs didn't care about the true purpose of the machine, which is how well it could crunch numbers.
How exactly does maintaining standards of design mean you simultaneously ignore everything else? Why do you insist on looking at things through such a hilariously narrow-minded perspective?
Do you think IBM half-assed all of their products as long as they were "good enough"? What about Sun? SGI? Cray? These companies all maintained very attractive and consistent designs and compromised on nothing to achieve them.
>>54137195
ofcourse
Microsoft was too stupid to realize the merge between personal computing and the fashion accessory world
>>54142254
misquote or not it sums the whole situation up pretty well.
I work for IBM.
Please help me.
>>54143086
>that Q1 2016 slide
>muh strategic imperatives meem
>massive offload of human capital in favor of cheap foreign garbage labor
>work
I think you mean
>worked
>>54143182
No, I seriously do. Part of an aquisition.
>>54142811
Jobs even looked like a douchebag.
>>54142811
>someone else does all the work
>jobs takes all the credit and money
The Apple business model since the very beginning.
>>54143233
I have only heard bad things about any recent company that has been swallowed by IBM. I can not start to imagine a small to medium sized company having to deal with the current state of management in IBM.
>>54143080
No it doesn't, Steve Jobs traded millions of dollars of Apple stocks for a TOUR of that facility, provided he could use the technology.
He then showed Bill Gates the Macintosh (in hopes of getting software support from Microsoft) in which Bill Gates stabbed him in the back and instructed his employees to make a direct ripoff.
Jobs was a master marketer. Huge psychological trickset at work with that company that is fascinating to take apart and understand the implications of.
>>54143043
>These companies all maintained very attractive and consistent designs and compromised on nothing to achieve them.
If nothing else, they compromised on price.
>>54143350
That's something I'll never argue with.
>>54143300
>the is what mactards actually believe
MS toured the Xerox labs the same way Jobs did long before the first Fagintosh ever released.
>>54142811
I wonder how many times Woz has pissed on his grave. I sincerely hope that number is greater than zero.
>>54142811
>>54142811
>>54143417
Yeah right buddy, you got a source for that?
>>54143417
>winshills have to resort to lying to get their paycheck
it's okay pajeet, here's 0.00001 rupee
>>54143473
Woz loved Steve Jobs and still loves him. He frequently mentioned him during his reddit AMA.
>>54143780
>this joke
>current year
>>54143837
>implying it isn't the truth
>lying for a corporation
Thanks again Pajeet, your service has been very valuable to us.
Who?
>>54138105
C'MON
WOOOOOO
C C C'MON C'MON
>>54139710
>>sells chiefly to businesses and enterprises
Your average person, your normie, wants something user revolutionary
When you're releasing a web framework that works with your language that's hitting over 1 million requests per second, Thats something the normie does not care about, but they do because they value responsiveness and speed.
>>54143676
>>54143780
>mactards so deluded they deny reality to defend "muh apel, stev wud nevar lie to me!!11"
>>54143676
>this is how brainwashed mactard morons are
http://www.mac-history.net/computer-history/2012-03-22/apple-and-xerox-parc/3
