20 May
2010
20 May
'10
11:36 a.m.
On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 7:11 PM, Tony Duell <ard at p850ug1.demon.co.uk> wrote:
Simply compare how many people saw or used or at least heard of an
Apple II compared with how many ever saw an Apple 1.
Apple 1s are like hen's teeth. Of the small number of people compared
to all Apple users or owners or people vaguely interested in Apple
kit, 99.lots of nines percent will never have seen an Apple 1.
Apple now has something ITRO 5-10% of the PC market. Sure, once it was
15%+ but the PC market back then was tiny compared to now.
These days, it sells hundreds of millions of machines. There are many
many more Apple owners and users around today than at any time in the
past.
(On the same note, by any measure, Mac OS X is the most-successful
UNIX there has ever been. The number of users basically equals the
number of installations, which again is many hundreds of millions -
more than all other forms of Unix ever put together, including all the
open source ones, even if you count users on terminals as opposed to
host systems.)
So that is a /lot/ of people to be curious about linking a 2010 Apple
to a 1970 Apple.
--
Liam Proven ? Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/liamproven
Email: lproven at cix.co.uk ? GMail/GoogleTalk/Orkut: lproven at gmail.com
Tel: +44 20-8685-0498 ? Cell: +44 7939-087884 ? Fax: + 44 870-9151419
AOL/AIM/iChat/Yahoo/Skype: liamproven ? LiveJournal/Twitter: lproven
MSN: lproven at hotmail.com ? ICQ: 73187508
The whole point was that it was the latest, still-scarce piece of
Apple kit and the oldest that most people who regard themselves as
"knowing about old computers" would regard as the first Apple.
I am wondeirng who can think an 'Apple //e' -- an Apple _TWO_ e is the
first of anything... This is not a
hard point to grasp, surely?
No it's not, but it doesn;t make it intereting.