The intriguing part is the wireless functionality and customizability with macros and such -- things it would be fantastic to see Unicomp offer with a variant of the original.
I really don't need one of these, but I really want one of these. Still, I think I need battery life measured in "weeks" not "days" before it'll work for me...
That was definitely the point -- well, two points. (1) there isn't any Apple Silicon-level Linux hardware right now, (2) Apple would benefit from more competition. In this particular case, it's the inverse of the usual Linux desktop argument, because the argument is the Linux desktop is pretty good, it needs hardware to match it, rather than "Linux needs to totally (or greatly) change."
> I keep hearing this, over and over again. But I plug in my Magic Trackpad to my GNOME desktop and it works fine.
Yes, Linux will -- in many cases -- work as well with accessories as any computer will in ways we'd largely have expected 20 years ago. The integrative cases I noted are something different. For example, the Continuity support between Mac and iPad/iPhone/Apple Watch. If you don't use those things, it isn't a huge deal, but if you do, it's not appetizing to give them up.
> We'd need a new Linux if you Mac pundits ended up writing all the rules for us.
The good news is Linux is free/open source. So, someone could do exactly what I'm advocating for in the article and not detract from the Linux experience from people who don't want that. In fact, it'd probably benefit all Linux users, because it would increase support from software developers, etc.
Yes. I'd love to see someone take the basic design of Windows 95 or even early OS X and reimplement it not so much visually, but tactilely. Make something that works as well, is as simple but isn't nostalgia.
In any case though, this particular attempt at giving a complete Windows 95 experience is quite cool.
The uncertainty around using the Model F designs Powell references are what have kept me from ordering one, but I have to say I love seeing someone try to put together modern mechanical keyboards that aren't just another set of Cherry (or clone) switches. It'd be nice to see someone run with a similar design but with commercial polish, perhaps via a Kickstarter...
Well, computers were expensive enough many of us just kept upgrading parts to make something like Windows 95 work. My 486 slowly morphed into a Pentium system with largely the same parts over the course of three years during that time. But Windows 95 worked great on my 486 -- it felt like a great upgrade at the time.
Believe it or not, it was a huge deal. I went to two launch parties -- one hosted by CompUSA and one by a local place -- the night it came out. This wasn't in Silicon Valley, but in the U.S. Midwest (St. Louis, MO). Hundreds of people stood in line at midnight to get the first copies at the two places I went to and the same thing happened all over the world. (Of course, CompUSA also had a whole display of upgrades to get your computer running better if it wasn't ready for Windows 95.)
The same sort of late night excitement existed around each early Mac OS X release, incidentally.
Grandempire is right on my overall sense in the piece, though perhaps I should have made its ore explicit. I actually faired quite well with 10.6.0. But, the lack of push for a yearly set of headlining features did allow the OS to age quite well in the years after, too. It's the drumbeat of what 10 stunning new features will be unveiled each WWDC for each platform that means past features rarely get the continued polishing they need to shine.
Yes. I remember it strongly hitting me back then, but rewatching added even more punch. I still agree with the philosophy, but this time I was also wistful for when I could say Apple agreed with it, too.