During that time we bought our Macs from a local computer store. Our guy, Fred, always helped advise us, but he was pretty frustrated overall with the whole situation. I mean he also didn't get why anybody would want a Mac when Windows devices were cheaper, more standard, and less buggy.
> One of the best things Steve Jobs did on his return was to trim the number of Mac models to a minimum.
Fred always said that if they ever introduced colors to computer cases he was going to quit. Jobs came along with the iMac and less than a year later he retired. It cracks me up how he stuck to his word.
The general rule was that the first digit represented the form factor, the second digit represented the base model (logic board), the last two digits represented the value-add configuration (amount of RAM, size of HDD, and included software package), then CPU speed was given after a forward-slash, and there might be a CD somewhere in there for configurations which included an internal AppleCD drive.
The PowerPC-era form factor numbering scheme was actually established in the 68k era with the all-in-one LC 500-series, the pizza-box Centris 600-series (descendant of the original LC form factor), the desktop Quadra 700 (descendant of the Macintosh Ⅱᴄx/ᴄɪ [compact] form factor), the mid-tower Quadra 800/840AV, and the full tower Quadra 900/950. Computers were called Macintosh when sold by Apple (like to schools) or sold through Apple's dealer network, called Workgroup Server (WGS) when sold in server configurations (like with AppleShare/IP) and called Performa when sold direct to consumers (like through CompUSA, etc).
It started well with the initial models of NuBus Power Mac: the pizza-box 6100/60, desktop 7100/66 (I had this one!!!), mid-tower 8100/80, and full-tower WGS 9150 — different form factors but obviously denoted as the first PowerPC model (x1xx) of each series.
The 6100 makes a good example of this era because it got an especially large number of consumer-focused SKUs where it was known as the Performa 611{0..8}CD, a server version known as the WGS 6150/60, and an eventual speed-bump when it became the Power Macintosh 6100/66 and WGS 6150/66: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_Macintosh_6100#Models
Then the exceptions to the numbering scheme started with the second generation of PowerPC machines, the first to switch from NuBus to PCI. They reintroduced all-in-ones as the Power Mac 5200 series (famously horrible machines) and stuck the same board in a Quadra 630 style case as the 6200, both with a PowerPC 603. They introduced a desktop 7200 and mid-tower 8200 with PCI but still using a PowerPC 601, so the x2xx still seemed to represent release order and not CPU. But then they simultaneously released the 7500 and 8500 with a PowerPC 604. Were these supposed to be fifth-gen models? What happened to 3 and 4? They introduced a six-slot PPC604 machine at the same time, the Power Mac 9500, but there was no PPC601 9200.
Next year, the 6400 appeared in a curvy and quite nice-looking consumer mid-tower case, but 6xxx has now represented three different form factors. The 7600, 8600, and 9600 replace their respective x500 counterparts, so now we're back to release order? It doesn't mean CPU generation, because there are higher-end 9500s with PPC604e instead of just 604, and lower-end 7600s with just 604 and not 604e.
The year after that, the Power Macintosh 7300 (I had this one!!!) replaces the 7200 and the 7600, so now we're going backwards even though it's a better computer? It doesn't mean release year, because the 5300 and 6300 are a year older and are just speed bumps of the 5200 and 6200. Except the 5260 which is newer than the 5300 and a much better machine, which was replaced by the 5400 which is a 6400 board in a 5xxx-style case. Except the 6360 which is a 6400 board in a 6200/6300-style case because they had already used 6400 for the tower form-factor the board came from. The 6500 and 5500 were speed bumps of the 6400 and 5400, but at the time of their release were two years newer than the 7500/8500/9500.
The 4400 falls outside of all of this, so at the time it felt like Apple trying to build a cheap Wintel-style business machine. There had been 68030 machines numbered 4xx, but they were consumer-only Performa variants of the LC Ⅲ. Except the LC 475 which was a Quadra 605 in a LC Ⅲ style case.
Except, except, except. What a fucking mess lol
Your Fred also clearly had a weird sense of "less buggy." At that time, Windows was essentially a GUI atop an extended version of MS-DOS. Look up any contemporary serious review and you'll find complaints about stability. Compare to OS/2.
Also thanks for bringing back the memory of all those "other" macs. I'd forgotten how weird it was trying to distinguish between all those meaningless names, and the marketing behind them didn't really help much.
“Add a driver for the NVMe storage controller integrated on Apple SoCs. This NVMe controller isn't PCI based and deviates from the NVMe standard in its implementation of the command submission queue and the integration of an NVMMU that needs to be managed. This commit tweaks the core NVMe code to support the linear command submission queue implemented by this controller. But setting up the submission queue and managing the NVMMU controller is handled by implementing the driver ops that were added in an earlier commit.“
The reason people are aggrieved by Apple’s storage upgrade prices is that you can usually buy a high-end, entire NVMe device of a given capacity for less than Apple charges just for the upgrade to that capacity, and the NVMe will be as fast or faster than Apple’s offering.
At home I have a desktop rig with multiple TB RAM and a fast server CPU. I would normally ssh into that to run tests with the chain mounted on a /dev/shm partition, which was a pain and only was accessible when I was at home. With my new MacBook Air, the upgraded internal drive is large enough to hold the full historical chain, and streams from disk fast enough to finish a run in comparable time. So now I’m mobile and can work from anywhere, with an entry point laptop replacing a dedicated server! That’s a big change for me.
I recognize not everyone’s tasks are bottlenecks the same way though.
Whereas with Apple, I believe the only choice is NVMe storage. What if I want more but slower SSD storage?
In which year do you live in? New computers haven't been shipping with M2 SATA storage since like ~2018, and SATA SSDs haven't been cheaper than NVME since at least ~2020. NVME has been cheaper than SATA for many years already.
Seems to me you have to do a lot of manual tweaking and install before having something half decent as a dev.
> Aren't Mac the opposite for the developers
No?
> with subpar support for say, containers and dev tools,
It's a Unix machine. All that is right there and readily available.
> and crappy out of the box window management
Not really, no. Add one app and it's a tiling environment. Actually that is built-in in macOS 15 but I've got it turned off as I have a tiling app I've been using for 15+ years and I'm happy with it.
> compared to a laptop running on linux?
No. It's a better UI in every way, less hassle, more apps and better support.
I've been using Linux for 28 years now and for a while it improved beyond all recognition, but it's getting very clunky again with all the bloat now.
I switched to macOS on my desktop machines once I could afford it, and Linux for laptops. This is a happy compromise.
But I've also been writing about it for well over 25 years and that means reading other people's writing about it and where possible talking to them.
All the professionals evangelising Linux in the 20th century have moved to Macs now. It's the same core experience, but done better.
> Seems to me you have to do a lot of manual tweaking and install before having something half decent as a dev.
I can't speak for being a developer because I'm not one, but I can speak about Linux and macOS as a pro.
This is the wrong way to use a Mac.
The right way to use a Mac is not to fight it. Accept things as they are, learn to work with it, and add the extras you need.
You can't customise macOS very much and it's hard. So, don't. Be like bamboo, not a tree: bend with the wind, adapt to where you are, and then grow where you want to go.
The result is a proper full on UNIX™ environment which needs little to no maintenance and has integration to an extent no other Unix-like OS will ever achieve.
Your questions seem to me to be motivated by bias and conviction of faith, and it is misplaced, as any such fervent belief is.
Oh my this rings so true.
While some don't like systemd (which is fine, everyone's entitled to their own choices) I do like the more cohesive and consistent approach a lot.
But then my two uphill battles are:
- Xorg is still my go-to in spite of limitations Wayland aims to solve (colour management, heterogeneous multihead) but I can't for the life of me seem to be able to make it stable/reliable/usable.
- Pulseaudio was a debacle, so I used ALSA since like forever and could do great things with it. Trouble is some modern things expected become hard to impossible with just ALSA. Enter Pipewire, which conceptually sounds like a great thing but it is so obscure and underdocumented that I just can't wrap my head around it.
That's very subjective. I prefer KDE Plasma.
Although colleagues have earnestly described why they like GNOME, and demonstrated it, all I see is people who don't know how to use the existing, 35+ year old keyboard UI of Windows, or the simpler and only a few years younger one of NeXTstep/macOS.
I can't stand GNOME myself. It doesn't get out of my way. It wastes a tonne of precious vertical space on its wasted panel. Its app-switcher is poor. Its window management is atrocious, but then, I've met with and interviewed the dev team, and they don't manage windows. They switch between full-screen sessions instead. I'm looking at twin 27" screens right now, and I want to see 5 or 6 apps at once. GNOME obstructs that massively.
But it's trivial to configure macOS to be as minimal as GNOME. Dock to autohide, cmd+space for the app launcher, trackpad gestures to hop between full-screen apps. It's not how I work or want to, but it's easily achieved.
Yesterday I upgraded Fedora Asahi 40 to 41 on my M1 MBA, and KDE is so bad I was reduced to laughter at its pathetic clunkiness. But then I am a documented KDE-hater ever since the days of KDE 2.0.
And GNOME, too, but at least it has the mercy of being pretty. Horribly confining and with an appalling keyboard UI, but it's pretty.
We can all have our particular taste. I don't think KDE Plasma is "bad". I personally prefer KDE Plasma.
I've found that to be true on every OS I use. Customize as little as possible and things tend to work better and you will have better luck finding answers when something does break.
>Your questions seem to me to be motivated by bias and conviction of faith, and it is misplaced, as any such fervent belief is.
Weird to accuse someone of conviction of faith while confidently claiming that all linux users switched to Mac and how Mac is the be-all end-all of computers. You're in a bubble if you think so, I can definitely tell you that.
I did not say that. I did not say anything resembling that. It's an absurd claim.
What I said was:
«All the professionals evangelising Linux in the 20th century have moved to Macs now»
Which followed, and was in the context of, the sentence:
«reading other people's writing about it and where possible talking to them.»
In other words: the professional Linux advocates -- that means, the people who were advocating and recommending Linux to non-Linux users –- that I read and knew and sometimes have talked to -- switched.
Not people in the Linux biz talking to other people in the biz.
People like author Charlie Stross, who is occasionally cstross on here, who for years wrote the Linux column in the UK edition of Computer Shopper and was as such perhaps the most visible UK tech journalist writing about and recommending Linux.
Or Neal Stephenson, author of the seminal "In the Beginning was the Command Line", which if you have not read recently you need to.
Here's a free copy.
https://web.stanford.edu/class/cs81n/command.txt
Mac users now.
Context is important and must be considered. You apparently did not.
> and how Mac is the be-all end-all of computers.
I didn't say that either.
It's got a damned good case to be the most sophisticated general-purpose desktop/laptop there's ever been, though, and it's held that place pretty much the entire century so far.
Tastes differ. Not everyone likes it. That's fine. I am not saying everyone should.
But I'm saying that if you read the widest possible range of OS and UI discussion and debate, there is a fairly clear consensus that what was Mac OS X and is now macOS is, while flawed, about the best there is.
In other words: the professional Linux advocates -- that means, the people who were advocating and recommending Linux to non-Linux users –- that I read and knew and sometimes have talked to -- switched.
I'm sorry, but as a professional journalist surely you must know the contradiction you've introduced here with the difference between "all Linux evangelists moved to Macs now" and "all those I know and read of switched" because those two statements are not the same thing.
One statement deals in absolutes("all Linux evangelists switched to Mac") and can be supported by sources if so, the other is a opinion based on your bubble ("all that I know switched to Mac") which is just your opinion that's different than the situation in my bubble and holds just as much weight.
I'm not much of a Linux person, but I have been using Macs since 1986 (as a developer), so I can attest to most of Mr. Proven's statements, irt to the MacOS.
It is very much a thing of modern times to be lectured on, for instance, desktop design, when I am fairly confident I've used more different desktop environments than the person accusing me is even aware exists.
(I would estimate I've used 35-40 different desktops across over a dozen or more GUI OSes. The first I owned myself was an Acorn Archimedes with RISC OS 2, an environment far weirder than any hardcore Linux advocate could even imagine… a default editor with two separate independently-navigable cursors (source and destination), three mouse buttons all heavily used, and no permanently on-screen menus of any kind (only context menus).
Ah well. So it goes.
Where did I lecture you on that?
> when I am fairly confident I've used more different desktop environments
Does using more desktop environments makes one's opinion on a specific desktop design more valuable than everyone else's? It's not like you're designing them, you're just using them, just like me and millions of other people.
>than the person accusing me is even aware exists.
Care to point out what exactly did I accuse you of?
But, to answer one point: yes, I do think that broad experience of lots of different desktop GUIs does qualify someone for comparing them, and for identifying particular strengths or weaknesses of particular ones.
Who were you referring to in this statement?
>than the person accusing me is even aware exists
You're saying that like it should mean something. It's still the subjective opinion of a person. It holds no more or less value than the subjective opinion of another person. Being a journalist doesn't automatically make you the supreme authority on something, you're still just a professional opinionator (no offence), but that opinion can be different than other users.
>I have been using Macs since 1986 (as a developer)
That's an issue IMHO. Long term MacOS nerds are the ones who got used to all the quirks and can't see anything at fault as they molded themselves into he platform with age, developing muscle memory workarounds without realizing, so to them that status is perfection.
Meanwhile, new users to the platform will see things differently.
An easier way to phrase that is "people have confirmation bias." You clearly exhibit this in your post. New users depends on if they've used other desktop environments or not. I'm confident that someone who has never used a desktop computer before would be more productive on a Mac. Had they used Windows, they may be confused.
It depends on who "the person" is. In this case, it's a seasoned professional, who uses both operating systems regularly, at a fairly advanced level, and also explains this stuff to others, while being held to journalistic standards.
Also, The Register tends to hire pretty sharp folks.
> Meanwhile, new users to the platform will see things differently
That's always the case. Unless you are an invested user of a platform, it's likely to be uncomfortable. When folks ask me if they should get an Apple device, as opposed to an Android/Windows PC, they are often surprised, when I say they should probably get what they are already used to.
Truth be told, there's plenty of good in all UI (including CLI), and people get very efficient, using their UI of choice. I find that it's usually best, if they stay on it.
Having been an Apple developer for decades, I have been absolutely slathered in bile from Apple-haters. It seems to be pathological. I assume that's because of the "snottiness" of Apple's approach. It's actually deliberate, and part of their branding. It can get annoying, but I know why they do it. Personally, I don't feel that way, despite being invested in the Apple ecosystem, and I don't hate other approaches, either. I managed a multi-platform development team for a couple of decades. It was not conducive to effectiveness, for me (or any of my employees) to be jingoistic about platform choices.
Professional in what? I'm also a professional. Is my opinion not just as valid? Is MKBHD also a professional in this sense?
>who uses both operating systems regularly
I think many people on the planet, including children, can use two or more operating systems regularly and provide opinions on them, it's not a rare skill or something that requires academic degrees. Is their opinion not just as valid?
>while being held to journalistic standards
A lot of events proved that "journalistic standards" mean very little, especially in the modern era of online publications being dependent on click ad-revenue. For example look at the disconnect between critics ratings of movies and audience ratings, or between car reviewers and car owners. Similarly, Microsoft and Apple make OSs for users, not for professional critics or journalists.
It's still just someone's subjective opinion on an OS, not something numerically and logically quantifiable as being the right opinion. It's not like it's a debate with Linus Torvalds on the correct implementation of mutexes.
> I have been absolutely slathered in bile from Apple-haters.
What does this have to do with me? What's with this victimization attitude on people lately? Should I feel guilty or sorry about something some other random people said something mean to you in connection to this topic? It's a conversation between you and me, I don't care about what others did.
I am replying to you from my third mac. I got it less than a year ago and it is the first Mac I have used since 2010 or so. Sure I am getting used to it but it does surprise me how different some things are from my typical XFCE/Win10 environments. I know unintuitive is the wrong word but at least for my own intuition, it is unintuitive.
docker assumes there is a linux kernel underneath, not a mac 'unix' kernel... so you end up having to have, just like on Windows, a vm running a linux kernel to run a docker container
But I am told -- I do not work with this stuff myself -- that if you simply install Docker Desktop, or something equivalent, it just happens, invisibly and out of sight, zero intervention and zero maintenance.
Which is the general Mac story, even now.
It’s a different environment compared to what it was 5 years ago.
Some parts might require some tweaks, but usually it's a once off and then you're good to go. Containers - haven't had much issues, but you might run into some non-ARM based images for Docker, but fairly easily solved.
As for window management - what do you mean? The window management to me is good, but then I never understood tiling window managers and such, if that is your requirement.
The principal difference is the sheer quality of the client desktop experience hasn't improved since then. The Linux desktop apps are pretty terrible, unreliable and clunky and most of the progress so far has been rewriting them again and again in slightly different desktops to no avail (gnome over the years for example). Yet still things like fractional scaling barely even work.
While everyone was pissing around with that and fanfaring open source, Apple refined a whole suite of apps that ship with their macs and phones and ipads that just work and sync properly.
And that's what is important to a lot of people, not whether the icons are in the title bar on gnome, any purity etc. Usability is number 1. And Linux is not.
What's good about it? The fact it doesn't exist?
Better late than never I guess, but they sure took their sweet time to implement features standard on Windows for 15+ years and 20+ years on Linux.
But touch input drivers on both platforms still suck, so I don't really care what their Window management is like when I can't interact with them without a hand cramp.
>And MacOS had Spaces 6 years before Windows had anything similar and Exposé for 3 years before they came out with a crappy not-as-good equivalent, and the current task view still sucks by comparison
So what? On Windows and Linux I never needed that feature because they always had proper window management, nor do I use that feature now. You're comparing Apples to Oranges. A Dodge RAM has a tow hitch, a Ferrari doesn't have a tow hitch. Is one better than the other, or are they better at different scenarios?
>But touch input drivers on both platforms still suck, so I don't really care what their Window management is like when I can't interact with them without a hand cramp.
All touchpads give me cramps and carpal tunnel, that's why I use an angled mouse. Again, moot and off topic point. What's the point of a better touchpad if it's never gonna beat an ergonomic mouse?
There are differing schools of thought in how computers should be interacted with, and your opinion is one of the many opinions that exist.
It's basically a Unix machine. A very fast and very cheap one.
Since I develop mostly for server-side, a Unix-like OS is a no-brainer. I have all three OSs on my desk and the least satisfying to use is Windows - it's relatively slow and difficult to troubleshoot device driver issues. On Linux you can always look under the hood and on Macs there is no such thing as device issues.
Developer job !== UNIX.
Being a developer has nothing to do with a specific OS in particular.
Now with the atomic distros, such as Aurora, you have a rock solid base you never touch, updates are atomic so you can always reboot to the previous version if needed and you create lightweight containers for development.
My current setup is Aurora as the base distro, all GUI applications from Flathub and the terminal automatically opens up in distrobox which runs Arch Linux with Nix. Super solid, super fast and everything just works.
From a professional perspective they are toys.
Plenty of professionals, including developers, use Apple machines for their work, as tools not toys.
Movies like _Parasite_, _The Social Network_, and _300_, to name just a few.
If that's a toy, I'd love to hear what is industrial strength.
While those two are pulling in opposite directions, having nothing in the middle would leave a big market gap.
Is it really just between the Pro and nothing at this point? Because that’s dumb if so.
- Pro if you need maximum CPU/GPU power.
- Air if you want something lightweight and don't need the "Pro" level CPU/GPU power
If you're only doing email/web, you should probably go Air. (There are no bad choices with the Apple silicon Macs for general use, it's mainly a question of how slow you want your video rendering chores and Xcode builds to be.)
Then multiply by screen sizes, which determines the overall size of the machine.
Edit: formatting. HackerNews support markdown challenge.
Edit 2: fuck, forgot non-Pro. Maybe you're right.
The Mini has the choice of base or Pro.
The Mac Pro/Studio has the choice of Max and Ultra.
IIRC.
If instead they give you ten thousand combinations you’re much more likely to just grab “the cheapest”.
And then realize there were better deals at the time and tarnish the brand.
Absolutely simplifying the lineup to four Macs was the best decision. Right now they have one more than they should - the MacPro and Mac Studio seem to clash a lot, especially since you can't use the PCIe slots of the Pro for GPUs. What do people put in those slots? I'd assume storage and fast networking.
The current Mac Pro to my recollection is also readily available in a rack mount format, in and of itself that’s a solid reason for keeping it alive
You can see this by comparing the marketing around the F150 (a consumer pickup that is used by commercial/business customers) and the F650 - https://www.ford.com/commercial-trucks/f650-f750/
There have been times where the Mac Pro dipped into the high end consumer market explicitly, but we're not in one of those times now.
(Do note that some consumers WILL buy "commercial" products and Apple's obviously aware of that, but I suspect it's hard to get them to recommend the Mac Pro to home users.)
It's like cars where they bundle one feature you want with a bunch of stuff you don't care about to force you into overspending.
Same goes for a lot of other products. For example CPUs, GPUs, TVs and fridges.
Sometimes appliance names are nearly impenetrable.
Yeah. I really liked my 9600 but the Performa lines were way too confusing.
I am not sure what "should" means in that context.
Surely many models would have been suitable. It is more a self induced SKU nightmare/issue for the manufacturer.
Really?
The phrase means "what was the best choice", which means "she could not figure out which model offered the best balance of price, performance and features."
I can't offhand think of a more efficient way to phrase it, TBH.
So much for choice.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twentieth_Anniversary_Macintos...
What it did not have though was true color; the video card simply did not produce it, even with maxed out video memory. As far as I understand the cause was that the memory was too slow for that.
I found a Motorola Starmax desktop (not tower) in the trash in Manhattan in the early 2000s. It chimed but didn't show video, so I installed a disk, installed NetBSD and used it as server for many, many years. It was very decently performant and incredibly stable.
These days I think it'd need a recap and the 160 megabyte limit would make it less useful than it was, but I still have only good things to say about it.
Going by the developers note Apple created for it, the LPX-40 is somewhat interesting, but the PowerMac 4400 is basically the most "boring" and normal Mac like configuration. PS/2 and VGA connectors, PC style MFM only manual eject floppy drives, support for "hard power" configurations and an AT like PSU connection - they were really going for "shove this into a PC case, and you've got a Mac". Also, Apple could've fitted a PPC604...
Fast forward to 2020 and Apple introduces the M1 MacBook Air. (Though people still complained about the 8GB memory configuration.)
Apple seems to have learned their lesson with entry-level machines; the basic iPad and Mac mini are quality designs (though storage/memory upselling is still a thing - the cheapest iPad is probably aimed at classrooms/kiosks/streaming.)
Incredible as this might sound, I think the best keyboard Apple made was the Butterfly. It was fragile and unreliable, but it felt great and sounded crisp and precise.
Even after leaving the Mac in the late 90s and building my own PCs getting to mess with a Mac was always a nice experience because they were so nicely built physically.
Auto inject was gone from Macs well before this model so it wasn't directly connected to the cheapness of this thing.
The first 3.5” drive I ever had was in an LC II. Before that I had only used a 5.25 in a PC XT or something like that. Being able to have it suck a disc in or ejecting a disc and having it pop out with that great mechanical noise was fantastic.
Because my age I thought all drives were like that. The first time I used a Windows PC (3.0?) I was surprised that you had to push the disc in by hand and that it didn’t just show up on the desktop in Windows. I had to be introduced to the concept of drive letters. Seemed relatively barbaric to young me.
Of course within about two years I was asking for my own PC for all the great games. So that didn’t last all that long.
Not Apple s greatest era. They weren't the old Mac cool anymore and they weren't yet iPod/iPhone/iPad cool.
Some G4 were actually good looking and had a great monitor too. But to me the G3 that followed that 4400 was just as bad Apple.
I have fond memories of the OS and still own it though.
My first Mac was an LCII. It had a 32 bit 68030–16Mhz processor with a 16 bit bus.
I won’t even get started with the 12 inch 512x384 monitor that few games were compatible with
I just went and tried inserting a floppy disk with either hand and it was exceptionally easy.
Wouldn't a left side disk drive and the standard right side mouse placement be a superior workflow?
Was the dislike just because of the change?
I've never heard that complaint mentioned before, so that article is the first I've heard of it.
My anecdata is working at Apple and Apple Dealers in the mid 90s to 2001.
But then not many of them got sold in my sphere IIRC. We were selling 8600s and then G3s into Ad Agencies etc.. at that point.
I agree the stuff about being harder for right hand is probably just made up after the fact as color commentary.
It's just because it looked like a WIntel PC and thus was a threat to the collective illusion that 1996-Apple offered anything substantially different or better than Windows '95 (source: was a 1996 Macintosh user who used the term “WIntel”)
Compare:
- Compaq DeskPro https://serialport.org/pcs/compaq/compaq-deskpro-en-c300a/#p...
- Packard Bell Legend https://old.reddit.com/r/retrobattlestations/comments/hjomez...
- HP Pavilion https://www.hp.com/hpinfo/abouthp/histnfacts/museum/personal...
- Gateway 2000 https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7a/Gateway_...
PowerPC
Also knowing Stephen Hackett, I don't think he's capable of hate for older Macs. He seems to love even the oddest of ducks and has a lab full of them.
The auto voltage switching - how often are you taking your PC to another country with a different voltage?
The lower quality case finish - how many mac users ever dared open the case?
