|August 8th, 2016 9:22 AM|
by Ken Gagne
|Filed under Mainstream coverage;|
In 2010, the Apple iPad was brand new, having just been released that past April. At the time, I was an editor at Computerworld, where I provided annual coverage of KansasFest, the world's premiere Apple II convention. Unlike Juiced.GS magazine, whose readers are retrocomputing enthusiasts, Computerworld's website had a more general audience, requiring I connect our favorite 8-bit machine to something more modern and relevant — such as the iPad.
Thanks to the loan of Loren Damewood's iPad and Tony Diaz's Apple Graphics Tablet, I produced the photo gallery "Face-off: 1979 Apple Graphics Tablet vs. 2010 Apple iPad". Comparing a drawing tablet to a tablet computer was, of course, ridiculous; a fairer comparison would've been to compare the Apple Graphics Tablet to a Wacom tablet. But where's the fun in a fair fight?
The esteemed WIRED magazine adopted a similar philosophy when they recently pit ancient technology against new. They took an Apple IIe and an iMac — coincidentally, my father's first and last computers — and compared their specs, dimensions, expansibility, and more. The resulting smackdown is this two-minute video:
When I bought my first Macintosh in 1997, I did so begrudgingly, to comply with the requirements of my university. At the time, I felt my Apple IIGS could still do everything I needed from a modern machine. Times have changed, of course, and an Apple II is no longer a viable primary computer for someone who wants to engage in mainstream multimedia, gaming, and social networking. But it's fun to see WIRED still acknowledge some of the foresight Apple had in designing their first machines, giving it strengths that modern computers lack.
Today's computers may be more powerful — but that doesn't necessarily make them "better".
(Hat tip to David Schmenk)