@Gene Steinberg,

Oh yeah… I still have scars from opening and swapping ram, hard drives, CD drives and God forbid if I ever had to change the battery, hit the CUDA switch or the every-so-tightly-placed cache module in that PowerCenter.

@Karl, I liked my Power Computing clone too. I didn’t like opening it up, and swapping out components, because it was downright treacherous in there. Then again, Apple was notorious in those days for producing products far more difficult to upgrade than even today’s Mac mini.

Peace,
Gene

@dfs,
For sure… Plus it didn’t help much that Microsoft was king of the hill. Most companies just didn’t want to devote any resources to develop Mac compatible software.

With Apple using more “off the shelf” components for their hardware. Moving to NeXT. The open source movement. The internet. Microsoft investing into 5 yrs of making Office for the Mac, as well as Microsoft’s security mishaps have all played a part on Apple coming back from the grave.

Back in the day, I really enjoyed being a Mac/PowerComputing user. I not sure why, but it was different from being a Mac user today. Not that I’m complaining about being a Mac user today. So while I liked my PowerComputing clone, I glad to see Apple back and competing again.

“I think at the time Apple really had some great ideas… CHRP architecture, PowerPC, OpenDoc, QuickDraw and others were really interesting but they just didn’t ever get Apple anywhere.” Back then Apple had a nasty habit of developing, or at least semi-developing, some interesting technology, and then just pushing it out the door and hoping that third-party developers would latch on it but not doing much to implement it themselves (OpenDoc is a classic example: back when Apple owned Claris, OpenDoc was supposed to be implemented in an AppleWorks 5.0 that never got released). This sent a clear message to developers: if we aren’t going to make any investment in implementing this technology, neither should you, and the result was that Apple frittered away a huge amount of time and energy on projects that never got anywhere. This, together with the licensing of clones and the insane proliferation of Mac models, was one of the ways that Amelio, Spindler and Sculley came so close to driving Apple into the ground. It was if, whenever some Apple engineer came up with a Bright Idea, nobody in management had the gnids to say no to him.

@Knute5,

How true! During the “clone wars” Apple was lost anyway, so why not go after them? Apple’s leadership was struggling to turn the company around. The hardware was good but the price was high and the OS was certainly on its last legs.

I think at the time Apple really had some great ideas… CHRP architecture, PowerPC, OpenDoc, QuickDraw and others were really interesting but they just didn’t ever get Apple anywhere. I’m glad Steve came back, brought NeXT with him and basically saved Apple. If I remember correctly Steve always wanted Apple to be more like SONY and less like Microsoft.

Looking at Apple now they certainly are more like SONY. Apple has been moving away from computers* ever since Steve had Bill on the projector at MacWorld and said the desktop wars are over.

* What I mean by this is that while Apple continues to build and make computers and will so for the foreseeable future. Apple has helped cultivate the idea that computers should be appliances. Take the iMac and now the iPhone for examples… certainly both are computers, but certainly both could be considered internet appliances.

@Gene Steinberg,

Until Apple came out with the 7200/7300 series of Macs you would bust your knuckles on most Macs. I had 8100/100 and that case was a nightmare. Before that I had a Quadra 950. That one wasn’t to bad to work on.

The cloners originally sold Apple on the promise of expanding Apple’s market share, but instead went straight for Apple’s base, cannibalizing Apple base hardware sales. At the same time, the AIM consortium (Apple, IBM and Motorola) was falling apart as jealous Moto couldn’t make a decent CPU to save its life and IBM was spitting out the G3.

Spindler’s, then Amelio’s Apple dragged its heels on the G3, still peddling the 604e/603e processor machines, while Power Computing (bless their hearts) showed the only “sack” in the industry with their upstart advertising and push for the G3’s adoption.

Back in Cupertino, the Copeland, ScriptX, OpenDoc (insert Boondoggle here) teams had proliferated, sucking up money, time and user patience and hope. Even the turd-in-a-box Pippin was a misfire – none of the old Mac CDROMs would run on it because the OS had to be included on the optical media.

It was a mess. Steve Jobs walked into a total mess, and the only thing he could do was strip Apple back down to its core functional competency and rebuild from there. He redefined the company, no longer as a computer box maker, but to a digital lifestyle provider. The rest is history. Jobs was right, and now the industry is still trying to catch up.

All you people taking a trip down memory lane need to be reminded that PowerComputer wasn’t the only clone: we also had DayStar, Radius, etc., and I myself had a Motorla StarMax for several years, which was a quite satisfactory machine. But let’s get back to Gene’s question. Who in the world needs a Hackintosh? The only clienteles I can think of are hobbyists who get OSX to run on a PC for the pure hell of it and people who can’t afford anything else, and I must admit to a certain sneaking sympathy for both groups. A few of those hobbyists may grow up to be part of our next generation of computer engineers (some of whom might wind up working at Cupertino) and I can’t help thinking of the former NBA star David Robinson, who was so poor as a kid that he couldn’t afford a computer, so he cobbled together one out of odd parts, and it might not be impossible that this feat helped get him into Annapolis. But in any event I can’t imagine that the Hackintosh movement poses any kind of real economic threat to Apple, and if I were Steve I would remember my own young days and feel a kind of sneaking sympathy. Unauthorized clones like the Psystar are something else entirely. Apple won that legal battle easily, but I can imagine two other possible challenges that might pose more serious threats because they might be harder to put out of business: someone who sold a model capable of running OSX but who required each user to buy and install his own copy of OSX, or a software product that allowed some or even all PC’s to run OSX under emulation.

I have a soft spot in my heart for Mac clones, but I don’t see a good reason for them today.

In 1995/96 I worked for an Apple dealer and saw first hand the bad cache problem with the 5200/6200, the dog slow performance of the 7200/75 and 90, the flakey SCSI of the 7500, the 50% failure rate of the AppleVision 1710 and the nightmare of System 7.5.2. Most of the Power Computing machines I encountered had strange problems that couldn’t be solved with normal troubleshooting techniques. It was also the era of Microsoft Word 6.0 and therefore the worst possible time to be trying to make a living selling Macs.

So I went back to school, but soon found myself needing to run Windows. I was at a crossroads. My Quadra 650 was a fine home computer, but it couldn’t run Windows. I didn’t have room for two computers so it looked like I was moving to a PC. Luckily two totally unrelated things had happened:
1. Connectix released VirtualPC
2. Umax released the SuperMac J700/180, a US$2000 clone based on the stable PowerMac 9500 logic board with enough power to run VirtualPC at an acceptable speed.

If not for that J700 I would have purchased a PC and probably gotten hooked on low cost upgrades. Instead I made a Mac clone my baby and spent a small fortune on RAM, ultra SCSI drives, video cards and CPU upgrades.

For the next decade I was excited about Apple hardware. My SuperMac saw the arrival of two different dual G4s and two dual G5s before I finally got over my sentimental attachment to the old beige box.

When they switched to Intel Apple became obsessed with making computers smaller. Performance started to suffer, the towers moved up in price and relatively unreliable all-in-one units took their place in the price list. I stopped wanting a new Mac. I posted long lists of what was wrong with the Apple desktop lineup on forums and met many people who shared my concerns, but nothing changed. The hackintosh filled my imagination just as a Mac clone had 12.5 years ago.

Then Apple did something amazing. They released the Core i5/i7 iMac with a dazzling, albeit far too shiny, display. They even added video input so when the computer gets too old for serious work, the display can be driven by a newer Mac. Although I can’t afford to purchase one yet, Apple has won me over. My three remaining concerns: reliability, glare and the inaccessible internal hard drive can be addressed with AppleCare, new room lighting and external drives. Those all cost money, but after more than 17 years as a Mac owner I’m used to paying more.

@mcloki, “Does the world need clones. I’d say yes from a free enterprise point”

What a silly, narrow-minded point of view.

So you’re arguing that Apple should be forced to give up its intellectual property against its will as a way to encourage competition? If the ‘reward’ for innovation is losing control of your intellectual property, just why should anyone invest in innovation?

I would argue that the best thing from the world’s perspective would be for people to be complaining to Microsoft about their inability to innovate – or even deliver products as good as their much smaller competitor. If enough people complain (or even switch), perhaps Microsoft would spend the time and money learning to write good software.

I’ve said repeatedly, and as some people would say, compulsively, that Apple will get around to squashing the Hackintoshes.

Reinstalling the OS is a huge security flaw which is carried over from when the Mac was a stand alone computer and not portable. It’s what allows for to be a market in stolen computers.

It would be of great marketing benefit to Apple to close this flaw off. If a SMB company’s notebook goes lost or stolen with sensitive data on it, the owner would appreciate that the private information is to be automatically encrypted. The owner would also like for the OS not to be overwritten, so that if the computer is plugged into the internet, it can report home its location via GPS.

The intent would be to improve security in the 64 bit kernel, but the effect would make it difficult to install Mac OSX on PC’s or clones. The installation program would be sand boxed and refuse to co-operate by installing the software.

I have both a Power Computing 180 and a Hackintosh. Both worked great. Does the world need clones. I’d say yes from a free enterprise point and a no from Apple’s perspective.
Until it’s shown that Apple is losing share to the Hackintosh crowd. I have two “real macs” as well and while I like my Hacktinosh, it’s not because it’s a Mac. It’s because it’s given me something to play around with, to tinker with. I bought my mom a mini, there’s no way she’d be able to deal with the Hackintosh. But I like the fooling around.
DO I think Macs should be less expensive and more accessible. Sure. That’s what the clone debate is all about. More Mac OS to more people. But from Apple’s 35 billion cash in hand position, Why change? They can’t hear our pleas for a cheaper mac due to all the cash registers ringing.

My first “Mac” at home was from PowerComputing. It was a PowerCenter 132 tower. Their build quality/power supplies were a bit suspect, but I still have mine and while it doesn’t get used daily any longer, it still fires up and runs well.

PowerComputing was kicking Apple’s butt when it came to making Macs. At the time, their marketing campaign was superior. They had an online shop and their “Macs” were faster/cheaper. Apple just couldn’t compete with them.

With that said, I do believe if PowerComputing and the other clones would of continued Apple wouldn’t of been around today. The good thing that came out of the “clone wars” was that Apple learned how to compete again.

I danced happily on Power Computing’s grave. I enjoyed every minute…every second of their
slow – and likely- agonizing death.

They were like the drunken and unintelligent cousin of Dell computers. Their sales reps lied constantly
and dealt from the bottom of the deck (when they started allowing distribution through other resellers).

Their hardware was shoddy. Defective rates were above 20%

The smartest thing that Jobs did was killed the clones. They were leaches as he said and did nothing but attempt to cannibalize Apple’s sales.

Assuming cloning will work for a more tightly controlled Mac market because cloning works for the X86 is the height of illogical thinking.

I’m glad things have turned out the way they have. Phew

@DaveD, Too bad I haven’t spent much time driving Fords. My first car was actually a Chevy, an old one contributed by my aunt, which lasted all of two months or so before we had to trade it in. Ah, memories. So long ago, so far away.

Peace,
Gene