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.
