Tag Archives | PCs

Fifteen Classic PC Design Mistakes

Posted by Benj Edwards on June 14, 2009 at 11:33 pm

There’s no such thing as the perfect computer, and never has been. But in the personal computer’s long and varied history, some computers have been decidedly less perfect than others. Many early PCs shipped with major design flaws that either sunk platforms outright or considerably slowed down their adoption by the public. Decades later, we can still learn from these multi-million dollar mistakes. By no means is the following list exhaustive; one could probably write about the flaws of every PC ever released. But when considering past design mistakes, these examples spring to my mind.

Special thanks to Steven Stengel of the Obsolete Technology Homepage for providing many of the photos in this article.

Apple III (1980)

Apple III

The Apple III was Apple’s first computer not devised by Steve Wozniak, Apple’s co-founder. Instead, a committee of engineers designed it to be the “perfect” business system. With an absurdly high price (options ranged between $4,340 to $7,800–about $11,231 to $20,185 in 2009 dollars) and numerous bugs at launch, the Apple III was doomed to failure.

Problem #1: No Power Supply Fan

The Apple III’s lack of power supply fan caused system to heat up, warping the motherboard and unseating certain socketed chips.

Apple III Chassis What Were They Thinking?

According to Apple insiders, Steve Jobs’ zeal for a simple and silent computer design forced the Apple III team to exclude a cooling fan for the power supply. Apple later suggested a simple fix for the heat-warping problem: raise the Apple III a few inches off a hard surface and drop it, hopefully re-seating the chips in the process. Fortunately, that advice wasn’t required for later Apple computers that lacked fans.

Problem #2: Limited Apple II Compatibility

To run an Apple III in Apple II mode, one had to first boot from a special floppy disk. Once in Apple II emulator mode, the user could not use any of the Apple III’s enhanced hardware, including 80 column text mode or the real-time clock. Compatibility with Apple II software was not perfect, as many software packages used direct memory writes in the form of PEEKs and POKEs that didn’t line up with the Apple III’s memory structure.

What Were They Thinking?

Like IBM and the PC/PCjr, Apple wanted a clear product delineation between their “home” machine (the Apple II) and their “professional” machine (the Apple III). As a result, Apple II compatibility on the Apple III was intentionally crippled.
Continue Reading →

Pages: 1 2 3 4

184 comments

The Greatest Half-Decade in PC History

Posted by Harry McCracken on May 27, 2009 at 2:59 am

Personal Computers of the Early 1980s The personal computer revolution is roughly thirty-five years old, which means that been through seven half-decades so far. To me, the most interesting one is the first half of the 1980s–when PCs were really getting going, and hadn’t yet become commodified through compatibility. Almost every new one was an experiment, whether it was wildly successful or a flop.

I’ve assembled a gallery of patent drawings of some noteworthy machines of the era, including ones you know–and, maybe, owned–and ones I’m not sure ever even had the chance to roll off an assembly line.

View Patentmania! Personal Computers of the Early 80s gallery

One comment

Patentmania! Personal Computers of the Early 1980s

Posted by Harry McCracken on May 27, 2009 at 2:41 am

PCs of the Early 1980s The first few years of PC history were its stone age–the era when any signs of life whatsoever were history-making. The period from 1985 to the present, as amazing as it’s been, has been one of consistency and compatibility. Which is why I think of 1980-1985 as the most interesting half-decade in PC history. Almost every new system (including some that debuted in 1979) was still an experiment–and even flops could be fascinating. Herewith a gallery of notable examples, illustrated with evocative drawings from Google Patents. (Click on the filing dates to see the patents in their entirety.)

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

21 comments

My Most Memorable Computer Was…

Posted by Harry McCracken on April 22, 2009 at 11:03 am

Got a moment to get all nostalgic over old electronic equipment? Over on Twitter–where I’m @harrymccracken and a feed of all Technologizer stories is available at @technologizer–I tweeted thusly:

@harrymccracken

Of all the computers you ever owned or used, which meant the most to you? I’ll run the most fun responses on Technologizer and give credit.

More than three dozen folks responded. Here’s the count of memorable computers by brand–two companies dominated:

Apple: 9

Commodore: 8 (no C64s, though–surprising!)

Homebuilt: 4

Atari: 3

IBM: 3

Sinclair: 2

Toshiba: 2

Radio Shack: 1 (hey, where were all the Tandy fanatics?)

Amstrad: 1

Compaq: 1

IMSAI: 1 (archaic!)

NeXT: 1 (classy!)

Osborne: 1

Packard Bell: 1

After the jump are all thirty-eight tweets (and Facebook messages) I got. If you weren’t one of the respondents, please chime in via comments… Continue Reading →

47 comments

Is Apple's 17-Inch MacBook Pro Expensive? Round 2: The Competition Goes Consumer

Posted by Harry McCracken on April 7, 2009 at 11:42 pm

Is the MacBook Pro Expensive? Round 2 Last week, I tried to conduct an objective price comparison of 17-inch Apple’s MacBook Pro and similarly-equipped Windows laptops. After I did, my friend Steve Wildstrom of BusinessWeek pointed out one basic problem with such comparisons: They’re impossible. By which he meant that there’s no way to do one that’ll strike everybody as sensible and fair. No matter how hard you try, you can’t configure a Windows PC to precisely match a Mac’s hardware. No two people will ever agree on the relative worth of the multitude of features you examine. Hardware comparisons like the ones I do intentionally ignore the enormously important question of the relative quality of Windows and OS X. Some folks will even contend that any analysis of PCs-vs.-Macs is incomplete without discussion of resale value.

In last week’s story, I came to the conclusion that the MacBook Pro’s pricing wasn’t out of whack with its Windows-based rivals–if there was a “Mac Tax,” it was matched by some of the other machines I looked at. Judging from the almost 200 comments on my story to date, a lot of Windows users thought I was unfair to Windows, and a lot of Mac types thought I gave the Mac short shrift. I choose to take discontent from both camps as a sign that I did a decent job overall. But I wanted to come back and address one gripe that came up repeatedly–that I compared the MacBook Pro against high-end, workstation-class laptops.

I don’t think I made a mistake by doing that. The MacBook Pro is Apple’s highest-end notebook, with specs that were similar in most respects to the Windows systems I compared it to. (And when the Windows machines outclassed it–as some did with graphics, for instance–I noted so.) Several commenters contend that the MacBook Pro is a consumer notebook, but that’s not really right: It’s Apple’s only 17-inch notebook. If you’re a business customer and want a 17-inch Mac notebook, it’s the one you’ll buy.

But the fact remains that most other computer companies divide their product lines into business and consumer lines in a way that Apple doesn’t, and that the consumer systems tend to be cheaper than the top-of-the-line corporate models. So here I am comparing the 17-inch MacBook Pro again–this time against consumer-class models. This isn’t a replacement for my earlier comparison, but a complementary piece. I’m guessing I’ll fail to make everyone happy this time, too, but Lord knows I’m trying…

Continue Reading →

Pages: 1 2 3

37 comments

Hey, Lauren! Is Apple's 17-Inch MacBook Pro Expensive?

Posted by Harry McCracken on March 31, 2009 at 12:36 am

There’s something about comparing the prices of Windows PCs and Macs that makes otherwise cool and collected people–Windows and Mac users alike–become profoundly emotional and partisan, until steam shoots out of thefir ears and their eyeballs turn bright red. You can see this passion crop up in some of the comments on Ed Oswald’s two recent posts (here and here) on Microsoft’s new “Lauren” ad comparing 17-inch Windows laptops to the MacBook Pro. I’ve also encountered it every time I’ve tried to do the math on the Windows vs. Mac question–which I started doing within a few weeks of Technologizer’s launch last summer.

I haven’t returned to this issue since last October, but the moment Microsoft put it at the heart of a major national TV commercial last week, the blogosphere started debating it all over again. I continue to think it’s worth trying to answer the question in a very specific and unemotional way. The specific part is important because asking whether Macs are more expensive than Windows PCs is like asking whether Audis are more expensive than General Motors cars: It’s a meaningless question without context, since the answer is entirely contingent on the models you choose. And the unemotional aspect of my research tries to strip out any bias based on anything but the computers at hand. (Note that in the commercial, Lauren sets off a powder keg of controversy the moment she says she’s not “cool enough” to own a Mac–me, I want to judge computers, not people.)

In the end, those comparisons are all about collecting fresh data on the “Mac Tax”–the notion that you pay a premium for Apple computers compared to similar Windows PCs. Or, as Microsoft’s Steve Ballmer recently put it, “Paying an extra $500 for a computer in this environment—same piece of hardware—paying $500 more to get a logo on it?” And since the 17-inch MacBook Pro is the Mac that Lauren nixes in favor of a far cheaper HP Pavilion, it’s the one I’ll look at in this story.

Continue Reading →

Pages: 1 2 3

243 comments

Specs: Not Meaningless. But Getting There.

Posted by Harry McCracken on March 8, 2009 at 11:10 pm

T-Week [NOTE: Here’s a post that first appeared in our free T-Week newsletter, which you can subscribe to here.]

Once upon a time, I could quote every major speed and feed associated with each computer I owned from memory. I knew the CPU’s clockspeed and how much RAM I had; I knew how much memory the graphics card held and what my screen resolution was; I knew how much hard disk space I had, and how fast the CD-ROM drive was. That was just the beginning. come to think of it: I could also tell you how many megabytes were free on the hard drive, and–in the days of DOS, at least–how much free memory I had once the PC had booted. All of this made sense–every spec had a meaningful impact on my everyday productivity.

Today? I’m not saying I ignore specs–I do pay some attention when I’m making a major investment in new stuff. But I don’t obssess over them like I once did. I’m too busy thinking about other factors which play at least as big a role in determining whether I’ll be pleased with my tech investments.

Continue Reading →

6 comments

Apple Upgrades Its Desktops

Posted by Harry McCracken on March 3, 2009 at 6:38 am

Apple Logo To quote Steve Jobs, boom! Apple just did a sweeping update of its desktop Macs that involves lower prices, beefier components (especially graphics), and other improvements. And it also upgraded its wireless networking gear. All in all, it confirmed a ton of rumors that swirled through the blogosphere in recent weeks.

A very quick rundown of some of what’s new:

–The iMac line now includes an $1199 20-inch model and a flagship $1499 24-inch model with 4GB of RAM and 640GB of hard-disk space that begins at the same price as a more spartan 20-inch iMac previously did, both with the Nvidia GeForce 9400M integrated graphics that first showed up in last fall’s new MacBooks;

–rumors about a Mac Mini with five USB ports were boring but true–the new Mini has ’em, along with Nvidia 9400M graphics and both DVI and Mini DisplayPort (it now has the ability to drive two monitors at once). And Apple says it’s the most energy-efficient desktop in the world;

—AirPort Extreme wireless routers and Time Capsule router/storage devices do simultaneous 2.4-GHz and 5-GHz dual-channel networking, and offer a guest login feature;

–the high-end Mac Pro line now starts at $2499 ($300 less than before), sports Intel Nehalem Xeon CPUs and Nvidia GeForce GT 120 graphics (ATI Radeon HD 4870 is optional), includes both DVI and Mini DisplayPort video output, and features an “updated interior provides easy access to all components within the Mac Pro for hassle free expansion.”

Whew–that’s a lot of overhauling–all of it reflecting Apple’s classic strategy of improving the specs at a given price point and doing some price cuts without going anywhere near the lowest pricetags in the Windows world. (Folks who keep guessing the company will go cheap all of a sudden should remember this: In certain respects, Apple is a profoundly predictable company.) It’s not the least bit surprising that Apple simply rolled all this stuff into the Apple Store rather than holding a press event and attempting to create maximum hoopla. Putting even Phil Schiller onstage to discuss these new desktops wouldn’t have been worth the effort.

Which brings up a question: Does this mean there won’t be any more strikingly newsy new Apple products in the near future? And the answer, of course, is who knows? We’ll presumably see a new iPhone in the not-too-distant future, and there’s a good chance that it’ll be a more notable upgrade than any of these new desktops. Apple TV is probably due to be reinvented at least a little. And the fact that Apple has recently updated all of its desktops and laptops doesn’t mean that there’s not a chance that it’ll introduce an all-new computer of some sort soon. Not a garden-variety netbook, surely…but a non-netbook that can compete with netbooks is plausible enough.

One fact about Apple product rollouts: The fact that it does a bunch of them on one Tuesday doesn’t mean it’s not saving more introductions for just a few Tuesdays into the future.

On the other hand–and here’s a bit of profound analysis–I think we can deduce that the rumors about an Apple event on March 24th to launch new desktop Macs were false.

Just for fun, I’ll end with a comparison of the backsides of the spy-shot Mac Mini that some folks rejected as an obvious Photoshopped fake and the Mini which Apple did, indeed, release today…

Mac Mini Comparison

4 comments

Gartner Predicts Significant Drop in PC Sales

Posted by David Worthington on March 2, 2009 at 3:57 pm

A new research note from analyst firm Garner predicts that the PC industry will “suffer its sharpest unit decline in history” in 2009. Gartner predicts a nearly 12% reduction in sales from 2009, but noted that many PC makers are and their suppliers are equipped to adapt to the changing reality of the market.

“The PC industry is facing extraordinary conditions as the global economy continues to weaken, users stretch PC lifetimes and PC suppliers grow increasingly cautious,” said George Shiffler, research director at Gartner. Sales in both emerging and mature markets will both decline at steep rates,10.4 percent and 13 percent respectively, according to the report.

The Gartner report is not so much a “Debbie Downer: as it is a reflection of today’s economic reality. Consumers and businesses are just spending less. And it’s not surprising to see them stretch out the useful life of the computers they already own.

Worldwide mobile PC shipments are expected to reach 155.6 million units, a 9 percent increase from 2008. Desktop PC shipments are forecast to total 101.4 million units, a 31.9 percent decline from 2008. Mobile PC growth will be substantially boosted by continued growth in mini-notebook shipments; excluding mini-notebooks, other mobile PC shipments will grow just 2.7 percent in 2009.

Desktop PC sales are forecast for a marked 31.9% decline; whereas, mobile PC sales are expected to increase nearly 10% from 2008. The report credits the burgeoning popularity of netbooks–low cost mobile PCs–for the growth. Netbooks are cushioning sales, but remain too few to offset the collapse of the desktop PC market, the report noted.

Regardless, PC makers have learned their lessons from 2001, when the market contracted just 3.2%, Gartner says. “Razor thin margins and the lessons learned in 2001 have schooled PC vendors and channels in the necessity to invest in their supply chains. These investments have given them much better visibility of demand, even though products are largely being built in Asia by third parties and therefore have long lead times.”

The PC market is far from collapsing, and the availability of Windows 7 later this year (unless it’s January) will likely boost sales. Back-to-school and holiday sales likely won’t be as robust as they would during normal economic times, but there are still a lot of PCs that will be sold this year, and there will not be a dust bowl in Silicon Valley.

6 comments

The Deal of a Lifetime on a Dell Netbook!

Posted by Harry McCracken on January 31, 2009 at 4:20 pm

Monty Hall I like to save money on a new PC as much as the next guy, but I’m not crazy at the strategy taken by many direct sellers these days–the one that involves there always being multiple sales and “instant rebates” and special offers and upgrade deals designed to get you to Buy Now! I’d much rather than pricing was less of a game and more of a straightforward transaction in which computer companies simply set reasonable everyday prices for their wares.

But even by normal standards, this offer from Dell that just arrived in my inbox is kinda silly. See if you can spot the absurdity:

Dell Deal

Yup–Dell is trying to lure me to plunk down my money with a Special Offer of $4 off. Which, if you ask me, shouldn’t be dignified with an exclamation point. Even though it reflects just how cheap netbooks and other laptops have gotten: Back in the days when garden-variety notebooks went for $1500 and up, there wasn’t a soul on the planet who would have been tempted by a discount of four bucks. For a $400 machine, though, maybe such a price cut willl seal the deal in some cases–Dell obviously thinks so.

I wanted to do the math on what sort of discount $4 is percentage-wise, but it’s impossible: I don’t know whether to use the $503 price or the $399 one. Come to think of it, I also can’t quite tell if the $4 discount is part of the $104 “Instant Savings,” or is in addition to it.

Which brings me back to my initial gripe here. Please, Dell…and everyone else who plays this game…just tell us how much the freakin’ computer costs?

4 comments

← Previous 1 … 6 7 8 Next →