Macrimination: A response to Mr. Dvorak

"I'm not writing this column as a Mac basher to get attention, although plenty of people will accuse me of doing that."

Well, it's a shame you wrote that sentence, John, and a cop-out that you did. Because of the rest of your column is very much at odds with that statement.

I've been a part of the Mac community for a couple of years now -- a former PC user who came over the light side while OS X was still this rainbow on the horizon that never seemed to get any closer no matter how far we walked. I've had a Mac-oriented Web site up almost at all times, and the one you're at, United Mac, is the current incarnation of my Mac evangelism. I also wrote a column for Apple Lust called "Macrimination," but time constraints and an overreaching desire to only comment when I really had something to say sent me into the background of the Mac world. Now, I only pop my head up when I feel I absolutely must.

Normally, I just shake my head at Mr. Dvorak, giggle a bit and move on when he lights into my platform of choice.

But this is different. The column for PC Magazine referenced above starts just like this: "Isn't it about time the Macintosh was simply discontinuedÑput down like an old dog?"

[Pause to let readers take in this statement ...]

Everyone is entitled to their opinion (here I am, expressing mine!), but a certain degree of fairness and attention to the facts should be taken into account when doing so.

A friend of mine who also is a Mac fan told me he thought Dvorak was just trying to make the point that both the Mac and the PC platforms need to innovate more than they are, and Dvorak singled out Apple because everyone else tends to copycat them. Maybe so, but Dvorak didn't do a very good job of getting his point across.

First off, let's take his assertion that at Apple, "apparently there hasn't been a new idea since" the original Macintosh. Ah-hem.

Let's get busy, shall we?

• The Newton Message Pad -- the first marketed handheld computer.
• The original iMac -- which set the standard for ease of use and style for the PC market for years.
• Firewire technology -- which is now an industry-wide standard used for high-speed transfer of data for digital video and external hard drives.
• OS X -- the largest distribution of UNIX to desktop PCs ever, and the first time a truly useable interface has been laid on top of that powerful operating system.
• Not to mention the new things to look forward to in Jaguar, or OS X 10.2, which will come out later this summer. It will include Quartz Extreme, which will "make the entire desktop a fully accelerated OpenGL scene." Also in the release will be Ink, an updated version of Newton's handwriting recognition system. Finally, Rendezvous will simplify the act of connecting to the Internet even more and an integrated journaling file system that will allow for the quickest searches of file contents ever on either platform.

But Dvorak really got me going later in the article, when he referred to OS X as "just and update." Its underlying UNIX kernel was "necessary to better manage today's networked multimedia."

An understatement, to say the least. First off, the OS is anything but an "update," as almost nothing about its underlying code is the same. It was completely rewritten. Sure, some features of the old OS 9 remain, and some don't, but this is a complete overhaul. And OS X has received rave reviews from other tech columnists the world over. Reviewers use words like beautiful, elegant, and even useful when they describe the new OS. And in a world where people are getting tired by new technology and fighting with it, anything that makes things easier to use and to look at is, in my humble opinion, an advance in the computing world. To his credit, Dvorak does later acknowledge Apple's feat ("Apparently Apple has done the impossible" by making UNIX user-friendly).

He finishes with what seems to be his point: "why can't Apple take its genius to the next level and bring out a completely new machine that is not a Macintosh?"

My answer, which is only another question, is why does it have to be something other than a Macintosh? Certainly, I would welcome it if Apple came out with something completely different with a different name (look at the iPod, the world's best mp3 player, which is most definitely not a Macintosh). But the Mac I have on my desk is infinitely more useful than the first Macs pushed by Steve Jobs in 1984, even if they do have some similarities. I can now easily watch and create digital video on my desk, record CD-quality music that I have written and performed without spending thousands of dollars in a studio and plug a digital camera to share my memories with friends within seconds. If I wanted, little old me with my G3 processor could also create high-end three-dimensional graphics, the likes of which are seen in today's blockbuster movies, if I had the talent and the money to buy the software, of course.

I am more connected with my creativity than I have ever been in my life. For someone who used to carry notes to himself on napkins and Post-Its and used to record his original music demos on a boom-box in the basement, this is most definitely an improvement.

But I agree with Mr. Dvorak that the envelope can -- and should -- be pushed further. And I believe it will. I just don't think he came to his point in a very constructive way.

Calling the Mac "an old hound that can't hunt" is not only untrue, but doesn't further his point that Apple and other computer makers need to be more creative than they are.

Creativity does not mean that all existing creations are useless. And criticism does not need to be destructive to be effective.

Discuss it in the United Mac forum.

...