Macs: Beyond Multimedia and Megahertz

In the mid to late 90s it was all about the megahertz.

Macs would display a number after the model number telling you what speed the processor ran at (6400/200, 9600/233), and most PCs contained it somewhere in the model number or showed it somewhere on the front (Gateway GP6233, Dell Dimension XPS Pro200).

You bought a system based on how many MHz was in the box, what type of video card was installed, and how much RAM it came with. Basically, you needed to know a little bit about computers to buy one.

The iMac changed that. The attractive thing about the iMac was that it was designed for people who had no clue as to the difference between megahertz, megabytes, and gigabytes. It was designed for consumers who just wanted a portal to the Internet so that they could email and instant message their friends and look up information online.

Apple took a very basic approach to selling a consumer computer. The iMac had one button on the front. Starting it up would reveal an icon on the desktop to help you set up Internet access.

It was simple, straightforward, and effective.

PC companies failed to see this, though. After the big "multimedia push" in the mid 90s - featuring computers with CD-ROM drives, sound cards, lots of software utilizing both, and the words multimedia and CD printed in large letters on every sheet of paper that came with the computer - PC companies took the idea of the iMac and made it more complicated.

They somehow figured that it would be easier for the consumer if the keyboard had six different buttons that opened various websites, three different ones that took you to various places in the Windows help menu, one that allowed you to print your documents (as if you couldn't just select Print from the File menu), and several others.

Since they didn't want to actually spend time designing radically new computer cases, most just used designs similar to the preceding ones - except this time they decided to color-code the ports so it would be easy to connect the multitude of wires that came included in the box with your new PC.

Obviously the iMac was a much better solution for those who wanted something simple to set up and use, but the PC prices were pretty attractive, and people did buy them. The problem was that they were often hideous, so they usually went straight under the desk, or, for some of the smaller models, behind a door in a computer cabinet.

While Macs still have great designs, PCs have been slow to catch up. Instead of gray cases with darker gray fronts, PCs now have silver cases with black fronts. The design of the PC tower has remained pretty much the same; only the color has changed. Today's lower and mid-priced PCs often look "high tech" and expensive in the hope that the average consumer will get the feeling that it's a nice computer and make the purchase.

Apple has been selling quite a few models due to the design. So have PCs.

What I've been noticing is that megahertz is now starting to matter less. I see virtually no performance difference between my 550 MHz PC and the 1.1 GHz models at school. For PCs, megahertz simply doesn't matter nearly as much as it used to. In fact, a PC manufacturer could probably be quite successful selling a modern desktop PC with a 600 MHz chip - if the consumer didn't know what type of processor was in it.

Average consumers don't know the specifications of their own computers. There are three speeds these days: way too slow, fine (I guess), and really fast.

The problem with this is that virtually any PC with a 400 MHz or faster chip falls into the middle category. Until recently, megahertz was used as a very popular marketing tool. 1 GHz has to be a lot faster than 900 MHz, right?.

Apple has done a good job of helping to tone down the whole "megahertz mania" of the mid to late 90s, and the advantage of this is that Apple's computers are much simpler for the user to purchase. Like with the original iMac, the new iMac, eMac, and iBook don't demand any knowledge of computer specifications in order for the user to make a good purchase decision.

Apple does a very nice job of keeping things simple. But other companies are taking too long to realize that when it comes to consumer computers, simple is better. Even Microsoft, who supposedly designed Windows XP to be easy to use, has a lot to learn. Many of Windows XP's options are in unexpected places, and it's somewhat difficult to figure out how to do certain tasks - not to mention that there are several different ways to access certain settings.

Not that Windows XP is a bad system - it's very stable and has a lot of nice features. But Apple has kept it simple in OS X. All settings are either in the application menu or in System Preferences, and although there are things one can do in Windows XP that can't be done in Mac OS X, figuring out how to actually do them is a challenge that most people won't even bother undertaking.

The megahertz war is over, and Apple lost. But in terms of ease of use, Windows PC companies have clearly been defeated by Apple.

While I do think that Apple really should start catching up in terms of the speed of its processors, it doesn't seem to be doing that. Maybe it understands the fact that any modern computer has plenty of speed for most users and feels that if it doesn't make a big deal about the speed of the machines, it can still sell them.

Perhaps other companies will follow. Maybe a day will come when processor speed will lose its importance and people will buy computers based on their abilities. MHz and GHz won't go away, but they'll only matter to the kind of users who can't stand not having the fastest computer available.