
The Macintosh in 1984 - bertiewhykovich
http://toastytech.com/guis/macos1.html
======
mikestew
"Makes you really wonder why Windows 2000 requires 128 MEGS to run."

Yeah, you just wait fifteen years when folks complain that the new laptop
offerings max out at 16Gb. I need an order of magnitude more RAM, but I can't
say I'm getting even twice the productivity I did in 1984. I use that extra
RAM so that someone can serve me ads and bug me ad hoc through whatever chat
app is fashionable at the time. If I'm lucky I'll use that RAM for something
interesting like a VM. But most of the time I use it so that the Java runtime
doesn't bog my machine down.

SSDs, OTOH, now _there 's_ something that has improved my productivity.

~~~
digi_owl
I ran into a line from Woz a while back claiming that those early Macs were
resistant to viruses etc because most of it existed on a ROM chip rather than
an HDD.

In essence, the Mac had more in common with the C64 and Amiga then it had with
the PC.

~~~
ido
And had the most in common with the atari st.

~~~
digi_owl
Damn it, i keep forgetting about that one. Maybe because i never knew someone
that owned one.

~~~
ido
I only ran into them long after they became obsolete (there were/are lots of
them in germany and the uk, and probably the countries around/in between
them).

They were so similar that an add-on was sold for the atari st that allowed one
to run mac system on it, somewhat faster than the equivalent mac :)

------
rpeden
I know we've made lots of progress in the past 30+ years, and we can do plenty
of wonderful things now.

But sometimes, when I see what was possible with so few resources, and then
press shift-esc in Chrome and notice my Facbook tab using a few hundred megs
of memory, I feel a little bit sad.

Or sometimes, after putting together a complex web UI using React, I feel
pretty good about what I've accomplished. And don't get me wrong, I love using
React and Angular 2. But then, I think back to how much more civilized UI
development felt nearly 20 years ago using VB6 and Delphi, and I feel a little
bit sad.

I actually feel more sad about the second point than I do about the first
point, because we can _often_ afford to waste hardware resources these days.
But as good as modern web UI frameworks and libraries are in many ways, I
still feel a bit like someone who once had a chainsaw but is now forced to
chop down sequoias with a hatchet.

~~~
digi_owl
Thing is that the web didn't start with a UI in mind. It was basically
shoehorned into that as Netscape and Microsoft battled over control of the
"intranet", and then the dot-coms took the results and ran with them to the
present day.

HTML started out as a document markup scheme for scientific use, with the
ability to embed links to other such documents much like a scientist puts in
references in their publications.

Only by overlaying a mass of CSS and JS do we get something that resemble a
UI.

------
CD1212
Having been born 9 years after 1984, I look at this and think how little
desktop operating system GUI's have changed in 32 years. The same menus,
windows, icons are all still very familiar, albeit with more visual 'eye
candy' nowadays.

~~~
maxxxxx
Back then they actually tried to make things simpler and easier to use. Now it
seems most "innovation" is geared towards more control by the supplier or some
designers who got bored and change things for change's sake.

Functionality-wise it seems both Windows and Mac are stuck somewhere in the
90s.

~~~
digi_owl
Frankly i find a repeating pattern with all tech development.

You have a early "runway" phase where you get the basics hammered out, then
you get a near vertical phase as those basics get rapidly refined. Then it
plateaus as those the ROI on those refinements worsen.

Between the 60s and now we have had multiples of these "S" curves happen back
to back. And now most, or all, are plateauing.

------
combatentropy
From the article:

    
    
      > All of this was designed to run in 128k of RAM.
      > Makes you really wonder why Windows 2000
      > requires 128 MEGS to run.
    

Indeed. Is this because the infamous recent JavaScript bloatation isn't unique
to JavaScript --- that OS developers too tend to rope in greater and greater
amounts of libraries, frameworks, etc., to accomplish the same thing?

It's true that today's operating systems do more, but it's still drawing text
and shapes on a two-dimensional screen. Do today's advances in multitasking,
color, and so on, really need 1,000 times as much memory (100 MB) --- or even
100,000 times as much (10 GB)?

~~~
mikestew
Well, in this example I don't wonder at all. Sure, Mac OS ran in 128K of RAM,
but IMO it ran kind of poorly. At a minimum, it seemed right on the edge of
being under-provisioned. In contrast to Win2K, which could pre-emptivively
multitask applications, serve up files to other computers, allow remote access
to the user land desktop, and had color. So no, actually, I don't "really
wonder" why Win2K required 128Mb of RAM. Sure, there was probably some bloat
in there, but there was also a lot of utility that came with those higher RAM
requirements.

EDIT: and in response to parent's edit, no, the utility I list should not
require 100K x the RAM of the original Macintosh. We could probably do a lot
of it with 100 times less. But you'll be waiting another twenty years while we
figure out how to cram all that into a smaller space. Or we could just say
"fuck it", build it now, and just bloat the RAM requirements. That doesn't
excuse >100Mb web pages, but I'm willing to put up with some bloat if my apps
can be segregated from one another such that they don't take the whole machine
down (as just one example of where I'm willing to compromise).

~~~
yuhong
It took until after the 1988 DRAM shortage ended in 1989-1990 (that started
just after OS/2 1.0 was released) before more than 1MB to 2MB of total RAM
became common. Then for years 4Mbit DRAM prices was stuck at the $12 to $14
range, which is part of why NT 3.1 did not catch on. Then DRAM prices declined
fast starting in 1996 until 1998.

------
izacus
"The Finder's user interface is far superior to that of the "MS-DOS Executive"
used in Microsoft's Windows 1.x and 2.x or even the Program Manager / File
Manager of Windows 3.x. It wasn't until Windows 95 (11 years later) that
Microsoft would even come close to the look and feel of the Finder - then they
threw it all away and replaced it with a web browser in Windows 98."

Can someone explain this? What was so much better in Finder that wasn't
matched even in Windows 3.1?

~~~
bcheung
I'm still amazed that the Mac Finder still doesn't let you cut and paste files
with Cmd-X, Cmd-V like you can in Windows. That's one thing I miss from
Windows. It was so much easier to move files around. Having to have 2 windows
open and drag and drop using the mouse is so much more inconvenient than
keeping your hand on the keyboard the entire time.

~~~
digi_owl
My understanding is that it violates the mental concept of a cut. When you cut
in a document, the text gets removed from its original location. A file can't
be such removed.

~~~
frandroid
Somehow Windows users figure it out, and find it very useful. :)

~~~
digi_owl
Indeed. While the desktop metaphor is a interesting starting point, it can
only be pushed so far before it becomes more a bother than a boon.

------
Zikes
> All of this was designed to run in 128k of RAM. Makes you really wonder why
> Windows 2000 requires 128 MEGS to run.

OSX 10.0 Cheetah was released on March 24, 2001 and had a system requirement
of "128 MEGS".

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mac_OS_X_10.0#System_requireme...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mac_OS_X_10.0#System_requirements)

~~~
agentgt
I'm not sure why people downvoted you but I +1 because it is important to
understand when this article was written (btw I can't stand articles or other
content that isn't dated).

I assume this article was written around 2000 when Microsoft hate was in full
swing. I was in college at the time and probably would have said the exact
snide comment by the author.

Comparing Windows 2000 to 1984 Mac isn't really that funny or even a good
comparison of whoa look how little resources. It is like comparing a spaceship
to a car.

~~~
Zikes
HN seems to be really facts-averse some days. Seems you're getting the same
treatment.

~~~
agentgt
It is called groupthink. Screw diversity of opinion or facts. Down voting is
an awful mechanism. I don't mind upvotes or flags but downvoting should go
IMO. The fascination/love of nostalgia is so rampant these days. Apparently
screw progress. South Park really nailed it on the head this season [1] [2].

"'member the 1984 Mac OS" \-- Member berries

[1]:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Member_Berries](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Member_Berries)

[2]:
[http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=member%20berr...](http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=member%20berries)

~~~
vacri
Net downmodding = groupthink, but net upmodding = diverse and factual?

~~~
agentgt
> Net downmodding = groupthink, but net upmodding = diverse and factual?

I didn't make those explicit equations nor is it that black and white. It is
far more complicated.

If you want more of a "net" it is we have a HN culture that prefers pressing
the downvote instead of offering a simply comment as to why the previous
comment is incorrect or why they politely disagree. Like I have honestly no
idea why the parent*5 was downvoted.

If the downvote is content filtering I could understand that (ie downvote
because other comments are more relevant/correct) but the problem is that it
is called karma and you can downvote 1 point comments. If it was fairly
positive comment (ie lets say more than 1 point) and it lost points I think
that would be better. Still it is crappy mechanism for content filtering.

Some people honestly think they are doing service downvoting comments. I guess
I don't agree.

As for the groupthink I meant it less for downvoting and more for the love of
nostalgia. I probably could have done a better job explaining.

------
zeveb
I still think the early Mac versions were some of the prettiest, friendliest
UIs I've ever used. Sadly, there's nothing today with that combination of
simplicity, elegance and friendliness.

I think the downfall started with the Macintosh II and colour …

~~~
athenot
I find the old icons were easier to distinguish between each other than
today's saturated and color-filled icons. Of course today we have way more
icons / apps than there was on the old mac, but today's icons all have very
similar shapes. Switch your screen to grayscale (in Accessibility settings)
and many of the modern app icons in the Dock all look very similar.

~~~
mikestew
I'm of the opinion that there was a time, very early and ever-so-briefly, when
icons were useful in distinguishing on thing from another. But now we have so
many of them, all demanding our attention, and looking quite similar to one
another. App icons on macOS maybe not so much, but for sure toolbar icons.
IIRC, there are even usability studies out there that back me up on this,
though I'm too lazy and apathetic on the topic to go look them up.

Point being, useless as icons might be these days, "we've always done it this
way" and either no one dare go against the grain or no one has a better idea.

~~~
notalaser
I use fewer applications than I used a few years ago (a lot of them got
"eaten" by the web browser or by emacs), and still have difficulties telling
them apart with "modern" icon themes. This isn't because there are so many
applications (they're fewer!) but because the icons are all flat, non-descript
and brightly-colored. Virtually all of them consist of a single geometrical
shape or a capital letter on a contrasting-color background.

I know this is supposed to be "honest" and "clean" and to present "the
essence" of that application. It sounds great on paper or in a book on design,
but it's absolutely terrible on a computer screen.

------
nickpsecurity
"All of this was designed to run in 128k of RAM."

Macintosh 1984: more features than most web apps with 1/1000th the RAM
requirements of some of them. That's if rumors I've heard about 100MB+ web
apps are true.

~~~
strictnein
Scroll through this. It's not even a web app. Just a short interview.

[https://www.cnet.com/special-reports/jony-ive-talks-about-
pu...](https://www.cnet.com/special-reports/jony-ive-talks-about-putting-the-
apple-touch-on-the-macbook-pro/)

~~~
nickpsecurity
That's ridiculous! Exactly kind of thing I'm talking about. Had to enable
several scripts then wait a long delay to get the whole site. Then scrolling
was a little weird. Quite a step back from the Mac experience except for
superior color and resolution of today. I'd seriously take a text-based Q&A
off Gopher over this site.

------
zerr
Like today, was it impossible to quite the app with a single mouse click?

~~~
mhurron
It was either Command-q or press and hold File and drag down to Quit.

Yes, you had to hold the mouse button, so it's still one click. And that still
works, you just don't have to do it.

~~~
DoctorNick
If you hold down the mouse button while entering the app, it counts as half a
mouse click.

But first, we need to talk about parallel universes.

------
diimdeep
Anyone who find this interesting should watch this Steve Jobs 1995 Interview.
[about how Apple was 10 years ahead everyone in 1984] [1] [about how this was
achieved][2]

[1]:
[https://youtu.be/TRZAJY23xio?t=3182](https://youtu.be/TRZAJY23xio?t=3182)
[2]:
[https://youtu.be/TRZAJY23xio?t=3994](https://youtu.be/TRZAJY23xio?t=3994)

------
mavhc
What's most interesting is the lack of change from 1984 to today's macOS. I
have a theory that all GUIs are stuck at whenever they were first released.

Macs in 1984 single app at once, thus screen level menu.

X in 1984, but wasn't really about the UI.

Windows 1985, multiple apps, thus window level menu.

RISC OS 1987-9, 3 button mouse and multiple apps, dedicated menu button, app
vs document distinction, drag and drop load/save.

~~~
digi_owl
A big reason for being such, is that of familiarity and muscle memory. Note
all the bellyaching about Windows 8's start screen.

Heck, i don't mind claiming that the _nix DEs did best when they were trying
to emulate Windows rather than dream up their own.

------
qz_
It looks better than sierra :/

~~~
wsc981
In my opinion, Mac OS 7 [0] was one of the best versions of Mac OS. It was
small enough for people to understand most of it. I liked how one could extend
the system using Extensions. Debugging problematic Extensions wasn't too hard,
one could just remove suspect Extensions from the System Folder and perform a
restart.

I think at the start of Mac OS 8, more and more bloat was added to the system,
without significantly increasing it's usability.

\---

[0]:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/System_7](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/System_7)

~~~
maxxxxx
Totally agree. On Windows it's the same with Windows 2000 and XP.

~~~
ido
i still prefer the ui of 98, even if the system itself was unstable and very
bad at multitasking.

------
dahart
It needs a picture of the monochrome MacPaint fill patterns!

I heard that the display drivers for the first Macs were written in Pascal. I
don't have any links that prove it, but it was considered crazy back then not
to write pixel routines in assembly...

~~~
spot
no it was 68k asm: [http://www.computerhistory.org/atchm/macpaint-and-
quickdraw-...](http://www.computerhistory.org/atchm/macpaint-and-quickdraw-
source-code/)

~~~
spot
however, Pascal was the official OS language, and all the original
documentation (Inside Macintosh) for the APIs was written in Pascal.

------
nradov
128KB? GEOS managed much of the same functionality in 38KB.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GEOS_(8-bit_operating_system)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GEOS_\(8-bit_operating_system\))

------
imode
monochrome still works nowadays. I'm a large fan of the old amber monitors.

efficient use of visual and machine resources. not quite the bloat we've
inherited these days. I use i3 and enjoy a blue-on-black colorscheme.

128k of RAM is enough for anybody!

~~~
ido
It wasn't even enough for the original mac :p the 512kb fat mac was released
shortly thereafter in an attempt to correct the situation.

------
mhurron
The nostalgia makes me feel happy.

------
niedzielski
This website is more than the Macintosh! Be sure to check out the other OS's
too!

------
rahilwazir
Still better font rendering than Windows 10

