|
 |
Articles: CMA - Classic Mac Addiction
|
|
CMA - Classic Mac Addiction
What makes a Mac addict a Mac addict? What turns seemingly normal people (and even computer users) into slaves to a lump of plastic, metal and glass that sports a fruit shaped logo? In fact, what turns any sane person into a fan of anything? These are all big questions that are actually all have the same answer. I'm a Mac fanatic. There I've said it, but what does it mean to be an 'anything' fanatic? Hopefully I can discuss, investigate and ramble enough that by the end of this you won't really care anymore.
The Confession: "I am an addict"
As I've stated above, I'm a Mac fanatic. I like pretty much all aspects of macs but my real passion is older Macs. While it's true that Apple is doing very well for itself releasing machines regularly and constantly pushing the boundaries of desktop computing (as well as other markets) to a small breed of the select few, nothing appeals as much as a 20 year old square beige box. Are these people freaks, weirdos, losers or any one of a myriad of other derogatory terms? What's the point of keeping archaic machines going in this age of G5s and Pentium 4's?
People who can generally be called 'Classic Mac Addicts' (CMAs hereafter) are a rare breed but not one that cower in corners shunning sunlight and watching endless episodes of Star Trek. I should know, I'm one of them. But what makes a CMA? Who are they and why do they do what they do? A more important question though is, why am I bothering to write this? Let's look at this question first - it might explain a lot in the grand scheme of things.
The rise of the internet has allowed many groups of like-minded people to come together and share information, anecdotes and knowledge. These are people who, ten years ago, would have considered themselves to be alone and possibly, certainly in my case, slightly deranged and weird. With the online communities springing up and discussing just about every subject imaginable it was inevitable that CMAs would come together and form little groups and, after a couple of years in the wilderness, it was to one of these groups that I gravitated (we'll come onto the how and why in due course, for now let's just stick with the flow). The good folk at JagsHouse (www.Jagshouse.com) proved to be a welcome oasis in the endless sea of PowerMacs and PCs and anyone could share info, ask questions and solve life's little Classic Mac problems. Life was good for a couple of years and then, like so many things, it turned sour.
At the core of the site, for me, is a wonderful forum. Unlike many forums Jag employed a zero security approach and, while this may seem strange to the computer savvy, in reality it allowed anyone to quickly post questions and get responses - no need for accounts, user logins and the like. Also, the technology driving it didn't need to be as complex or powerful, and this, no doubt, cut the administration work but also allowed actual older machines to access the site. It was through this portal that I entered the online CMA community but, as mentioned above, it turned sour. Who knows what motivates people but JagsHouse soon became infiltrated with what we termed 'spoofers'. Spoofers assumed the identity of other users on the site, posting insulting responses to questions, incorrect answers and even dangerous information (when you're dealing with electricity then things can quickly get nasty).
What the motivation behind this is still eludes me to this day but suffice to say that as more useless drivel started to appear, the more people started to drift away. Was it the openness of the place? Was it jealousy that this site was popular? Was it simple baiting of Mac users by PC users? Who knows but the end result was that the community was destroyed (or at the very least, badly damaged - it's still going as I write this but who can tell what the future will bring). Amazingly the culprit (or at least the original culprit - a whole raft of spoofers eventually appeared) was tracked down and it turned out to be a 13 year boy. I won't discuss names or details as there's no doubt a lovely lawsuit sat somewhere waiting to get filed but, suffice to say, he proudly boasted of his work and wrecked havoc, all safe in the knowledge that as a 'minor' the law would protect him.
Note: Following my departure from JagsHouse I ended up at the 68k Mac Liberation Army (www.68kmla.net). Thoroughly top bunch of people who are totally obsessed with all things older Mac - well worth a look.
It was this situation that gave birth to the idea behind this article. Why do people idolise things (especially Macs in this case)? Why are they frowned upon by others? What motivates some people to try and destroy such communities? (Actually we won't delve into this last question to deeply but who knows where this mindless river of gibberish will take us - I certainly don't) (I just make up all up on the spur of the moment by the way). Of course the fact that I'm sat at my desk bored out of my mind on a grey Wednesday afternoon is also a contributary factor. As I'm a full blown CMA, I'll write it from that perspective but hopefully I'll pose a few questions and delve a little into the thought processes that go into being a fan. I'll probably also ramble all over the place but that's kind of what I'm good at.
Where It All Began...
So where does this Classic Mac Addiction (or, indeed, any addiction) come from? In my case I'm a PC user and have been ever since the early to mid 1990's (before then it had been a couple of Acorn machines but nothing really major). The PC was the 'affordable' machine that did everything and was mainstream where as the Mac was the domain of the arty and those users who weren't smart enough to handle a 'real' machine - oh how times would change.
A week off work in 2001 (due to a knee injury so I couldn't even escape from the house) changed my viewpoint enormously. Having perused the various eBay auctions I spotted a little SE/30 (from 1989) being sold for the bargain price of £50 (OK I know now that this was a bit high but, such is life). That little machine promptly crashed on me within a couple of hours and destroyed it's hard disk. Had this been many other machines and at any other time then I probably would have written it off but for some reason the SE/30 just appealed to me, so much so that I christened it 'Tiny Mac'.
What the appeal is I don't know for certain even to this day, but that little machine just captivated me and managed to re-ignite something that had seemingly died long before: enthusiasm. Having spent many years dealing with PCs (and several of them coding full time) I'd become world weary and totally fed up with computers (i.e. PCs) altogether. Here though was something different, something that didn't fit into my little PC world - in short, here was something strange. Curiosity plays a big part in many people's minds and mine is one of them. Tiny Mac was a whole new way of thinking and a totally different approach to computing as far as I was concerned and this picqued my interest.
The logical part of my brain knows that I shouldn't be attracted to a piece of underpowered, out-dated machinery that isn't even from the 'world' that I'm used to (I'm a PC software developer by profession)...but I am. Classic Macs (those with a Motorola 680X0 processor) are hopelessly out of date and were underpowered long before they were discontinued in the mid 1990's. They're slow, often only sport black and white screens, don't have 'modern' features such as CD drives (never mind DVD), can't easily be connected up to the internet and networks (it can be done though), and they're relics from a bygone computing age...but somehow they still appeal.
Classic Macs are from an entirely different age of computing: an age where blocky graphics and simple beeps were the limit of gameplay; where command line interfaces were the standard; where a hard disk was the stuff of dreams. When the Mac was launched in 1984 (a year after it's older 'sister' the Lisa) it really was revolutionary as it sported the first widely available (and affordable) graphical user interface (GUI). This little machine revolutionised how the world looked at computers and computing. No longer was a computer a monolithic box that was the size of a house. No longer was an army of white-coated techniciens needed to feed endless spools of tape into it. No longer did you need a degree in advanced electronics to understand the six inch thick user manual (and memorise 60,000 commands). Here was a compact all-in-one machine that brought computing power to the masses. Admittedly there had been machines before it, but Macintosh brought computing to non-scientific user, both in the workplace and in the home. Immitators would come and go and many operating systems (actually, most) would adopt the GUI over the command line, leading to the current dominance of Microsoft Windows and the ongoing battle between die-hard fanatics over which OS is better.
That was 1984 though and, in 2001, the computing world had made quantum leaps. Not only was the hardware underneath modern machines hundreds, thousands and sometimes millions of times faster and more powerful, but the software that ran on top of it was far more advanced, feature packed and easier to use. So what stopped me from opening the window and throwing my broken 12 year old machine out into the street?
But Where's The Appeal?
To quantify what attracts me, and others, to Classic Macs is not an easy task. The best way is probably to describe a Mac from an addict's point of view. To say that a computer is just a box with electronics inside is, technically, correct but there's more to a computer than just this. A very apt analogy is the modern car: technically it's a metal box housing an engine, but why the vast array of manufacturers, models and styles? The answer comes down to cost, features, aesthetics, build quality and a whole host of criteria that expands the basic concept into a million and one possibilities. The same is true of the computer and, just as one buyer will always favour Ford over Chrysler, so too will one buyer favour Apple over IBM (or a clone). The point that I'm trying to make (badly) is that there will always be an element of personal choice and preference - it doesn't make one machine automatically superior to another but it comes down to personal preference.
Note: This is about as far as this'll go on the technical side of things. I could ramble on all day about underlying technical issues that differentiate Macs from other machines but instead this article will focus on the more esoteric side of things.
Up until the launch of the iMacs in the late 1990's, computers were strictly in the 'beige box' category, regardless of whether they were PCs or Macs. Where the difference between PCs and Macs lay though was in their material. PCs favoured steel cases while Macs generally opted for plastic. Here then is our starting point (at last).
The chunky feel of the plastic case somehow gave Tiny Mac a tactile quality that was just lacking in so many machines that I'd used (both PCs and other electrical items). Tiny Mac felt solid where the PC felt 'empty' (even now most PCs seem to 'echo' when the case comes off). The plastic case gave it a warm feel whereas the PCs steel felt cold. Subconsciously this difference between warm and cold may have been the first endearing quality, who can tell.
Elsewhere Tiny Mac sported elegance and simplicity in its physical design. The PC was this blank box with a vast array of sockets on the back. Just to get started you needed an array of cables to hook up the monitor, the keyboard and the mouse. Tiny Mac still needed a keyboard and a mouse but they were connected via a single wire (rather than two seperate wires) and somehow it made the desk seem neater. The in-built 9" monitor may have been microscopic compared to my PC's 17" behemoth but somehow that just added to its charm - the mighty Goliath like PC with its vast array of peripherals and cables, next to Tiny Mac's compact-ness. The PC, because of its sheer size, was shoved under the desk, spreading its web of wires outwards, and always meant a tortuous fumbling in the dark to plug anything in. Tiny Mac, by comparisson, sat neatly on the desk with everything easily accessible.
When I first powered up Tiny Mac I was greeted by a 'bing' and a smiling little face (disaster would strike later but let's not worry about that for now). The hard disk chugged away and the little smiling face was replaced by a 'Welcome To Macintosh' message. This all seemed to be so personal compared to the cryptic messages that the PC spewed forth ('Checking Memory...', 'Trident TGA 1024Kb', 'Press F2 to enter setup' etc. etc. etc.) and instantly made me warm to the little machine. Although only 1024 black and white pixels, that little smiling face imbued the machine with a personality. This wasn't a printed circuit board with an array of silicon chips soldered onto it, this was a little friend that was happy to see you. It told me that here was a little being that wanted to be used and worked with (later I would find out that it also meant that the machine was OK but that's another story). It was friendly rather than cryptically technical and it was just one more thing to hook the world weary computer user. The machine was felt as if it had been designed to be used by people, not a machine that people had to be designed to work with.
And so we reached the desktop. To a Windows 95 user (yes, those were the days) Mac OS 7 was a mightily strange place. I'd only ever seen one other Mac in my life and had gotten rather annoyed when it wouldn't spit out the floppy disk("BUT WHERE'S THE SODDING EJECT BUTTON?!?!?!!"), so I wasn't at all comfortable in this new little desktop. Little is a very important word as my full colour 800x600 Windows environment was about as different to this monochrome 512x342 as it possibly could be. The grey taskbar at the bottom of the screen had been replaced with a white strip at the top of the screen. It's not the end of the world but the differences were enough to reduce this experienced user to a total novice again.
Windows 95 may have sported colour icons and, therefore, should have been far more appealing, but Tiny Mac just oozed that same friendliness that was so evident with the initial smiling face. It's not an easy feeling to convey but the whole machine felt so much warmer and fiendlier than the PC ever had. Yes the tasks and operations were alien (not totally alien but enough to leave me scratching my head at times) but the little pile of plastic, metal and glass had somehow captured and conveyed a little personality. Maybe it was just something different to the 'corporate' nature of Windows but, having played with Silicon Graphics machines (SGi), this didn't feel as if it was the main reason. Apple, Microsoft and SGi are all big corporations but only Apple seemed to have captured that special something that made their machine personal. Not that the fact that it was an 'Apple' made any difference - it was just me and Tiny Mac, the fact that it was an Apple machine was totally unimportant.
All of these factors on their own probably wouldn't be enough to turn a vaguely interested user into a CMA and, even combined, they'd probably struggle. What happened to Tiny Mac though probably did. The little machine may have worked fine but it soon crashed and called for a complete re-install of the operating system. Now, given the fact that I was a complete novice Apple user with no software, hardware or support (other than Tiny Mac itself) logic would say that I should have given up right there and then. Sadly it was all too late for me.
Tiny Mac already had me hooked and who knows whether it was the smiling face, the welcome message or the neat little case design, but I didn't feel that it was fair that this little machine should die an ignominious death. Part of me thought it unfair that this little Mac had entered a world of PCs and was all alone. Sentimental claptrap? Probably, but enough to start me on the road to full blown CMA-hood.
Is it wrong to assign human attributes to inanimate objects? Is to wrong to anthropomorphosise? Whether it's right or wrong, we all do it to a greater and lesser degree. Pet owners apply human thoughts and emotions to their animals. Car owners regularly name (and even talk to) their metal boxes. We, as comsumers, grow attached to objects and things and come to look on them as no longer being just 'things' but actually having qualities that they, logically, can't possess.
The same is true of computers (or just about anything), but why should one type of computer have such an effect while others do not? An immediate response might be to suggest that this is a fragment of childhood dragged with us into adulthood - a vain attempt to recapture a childhood happiness. In my case though this isn't true. I'd been brought up with BBC machines but, while I occasionally dabble with a BBC emulator, when I did buy an Acorn A3010, it bored the pants off of me. Besides which, I'd never owned an Apple or even had any great exposure to them before Tiny Mac.
So what's the attraction? What allowed Tiny Mac to bridge the human/inanimate-object gap while many other machines and objects haven't? I don't get emotional about the toaster or the TV (actually this is a lie - I'm deeply attached to my 42" plasma TV and have only recently allowed the wife to use it when I'm not in the house), but I do about the Mac - why?
There have been many studies on the subject of why Macintosh has spawned a near religion (the best example being Leander Kahney's book, The Cult of Mac) but what does it mean from an actual addict's point of view. Yes the physical aspect of the machine is tangible and understandable but surely that can't be enough? In the case of the Mac then there's more than this.
Mac History 101
The Macintosh was born in an era when computing (of the desktop variety) was still in its relative infancy. The home computing industry had grown from two man operations being run out of garages into a marketplace where even the likes of IBM were sitting up and taking notice. These were exciting days as the whole course of desktop computing was at a new frontier. This was before the dominance of the PC and Microsoft's Windows and a whole pleathora of standards, machines and manufacturers vied for attention and control. At the time, just about every machine sported a command line interface: users typed in commands and the machine responded. This was fine for techie types but restricted computers to the domain of the scientist. The work done at Xerox's Palo Alto Research Centre (PARC) had created the concept of the GUI but it existed as little more than a research project and was highly unlikely to see the actual light of day (Xerox did in fact release the Xerox Star but it was so astronomically expensive that it quickly disappeared).
Young upstart Apple had managed to get a glimpse of Xerox's work and had already set about creating the Lisa. Lisa was, from an operating system point of view, cutting edge. It had icons, a mouse, a desktop, and just about all of the elements that we now take for granted when it comes to the GUI. To do all of this though took a lot of processing power and the technology available at the time was barely up to the job, and certainly didn't come cheap. When initially released, Lisa ended up costing $9999 - hardly an insignificant sum even now.
Lisa did the job but sadly, even with all of its clever thinking, didn't do it very quickly. This became even more of a problem for the low-key Macintosh project. Macintosh had been originally proposed as a $500 machine before undergoing numerous revisions and emerging as the little machine that we all know and love to this day. The Macintosh team faced a problem though - how to squeeze the visually stunning Lisa GUI concepts into an even smaller and cheaper package? The answer came through brilliance, inventiveness and passion.
Pushed relentlessly by ever demanding Steve Jobs (following the departure of the Mac's original inventor Jeff Raskin) the team knew that they were on the verge of something 'insanely great'. Through their work the machine took shape but also captured something far more esoteric - personality. As coders shaved bytes from software and hardware engineers tweaked and improved board designs (and the like), their enthusiasm and passion became fused into the silicon and the arrangement of magnetic particles on a spinning disk. It's not often that this pride and energy is captured in inanimate objects but the Mac managed it.
Most items that surround us and are part of our everyday lives are just that, 'items', but some have that special 'something' that elevates them and gives them a personality. I sit here typing this in front of a black slab of a PC that has about as much life to it as the stack of training CDs that sit next to it. The photocopier sits there looking like a white box; the phone is in the corner of the desk being just a phone; the buildings outside all look like big grey concrete boxes (which, in fact, they are). Across the street in the car park there's an array of cars but why do some leap out more than others? Why are the Smart cars and the Corsas more appealing than the Vectras and the big BMWs?
The answer may be more from paternal instincts than anything else but objects that resemble infants (big eyes etc.) are generally more appreciated than items that don't. Does this apply to the Mac though? In the case of the compact Macs (those with built in screens) then yes it can. That may explain the subconscious physical attraction but how does this sense of 'pride' come into play?
If you start up an old Mac then you're greeted by the smiling face and welcome message that I was when I first started up Tiny Mac (and have been by every Mac ever since) but when actually using the machine you realise that actions do not necessarily happen just because it's logical for them to happen. The more that you use a Mac the more you discover and unearth. Little shortcuts and actions that you stumble across can pass you by without a second thought but, if you ever step back and think about it for a second, suddenly seem brilliantly simple and intuitive. This simplicity doesn't just happen by chance and, as a programmer, you realise that someone had to work long and hard to identify the situation and come up with a solution to it. This should also be the case with Microsoft's Windows but somehow it isn't. While later versions of the OS have caught up enormously, earlier versions didn't appear to have this thought and effort. When everything was running fine then everything was fine but as soon as something went wrong then it would quite happily throw up its arms and fall over. Macintosh's OS never felt like that. Yes it still crashed but it helped you whenever and wherever it could. Creating a network, for example, became child's play because the effort had been put in place to make it simple - in Windows it was a nightmare of pseudo-technical gibberish that scared all but the most highly qualified.
This simplicity may explain why many computer novices often find it easier to use a Mac than a Windows machine - the Mac works with you (to a certain extent) while Windows almost forces you to work its way. In the early machines this software quality is what makes using the machine such a joy and, by working with you, rather than changing how you have to work, it creates a bond between the user and the machine. The bond shouldn't exist but it does and it could be this joy of use that endears certain items to certain people.
Looking at the bond between the user and the machine (or item), and the effort that went into creating it (which shines out whenever you use it) it's possible to see where such an addiction, for some people, can come from. By bonding with something you become responsible for it and, in much the same way as you would with a dog, you care for it and want to look after it. If your dog needs an operation then you take it to the vet and worry until its better. If your Mac breaks then you take it to the repair shop and worry until its fixed. When my PC breaks (and I mean breaks, not just crashes) then it goes to the shop and I feel a bit lost without it...but I don't worry about it.
The Need To Horde...Err I Mean Preserve
But why preserve old, outdated machines at all? Yes there's that bond but is that enough to justify keeping these lumbering near stone-age machines running in an age when near infinitely faster machines are so affordable? Actually this bond goes a long way to providing this justification but sentimentality also plays a part. Human beings do like to attach emotions to inanimate objects and, in the case of the Mac, I've managed to explain some of the reasons behind this. That's not to say that it doesn't happen to other inanimate objects as it does - who can't get a little misty eyed when they remember, for example, a favourite car or a particular item of clothing?
To anyone else, the adulation associated with an object may seem pointless and meaningless but everyone is different and is the keeper of a unique set of experiences and memories. Perhaps it's this need to preserve memories that leads us to preserve physical objects. Yes there is a logical need to preserve items from the past (if only for reference value) but the preservation of Macs, or other inanimate objects, goes beyond this. It's all well and good to read about an event in a book but it's far more interesting to talk to someone who experienced the event first hand. A written document or piece of reference material will only tell you what the author thought you wanted to know - it's guaranteed that someone will think of something that's missing though.
So is CMA merely a way of passing the flame of knowledge? Possibly but I personally think that there's more to it than this. To have read about an event is not the same as actually being there. Talking to a first hand witness is a good step but it's still not the same as being there. In the case of classic Macs then to read about these machines is one thing but to actually own one is something else. This is akin to reading about a Ferrari and actually owning one (as an actual example, and boast, I'd read about the Lamborghini Diablo for years but nothing could prepare me for the actual experience of driving one).
The bond between the user and the machine also introduces another element into the equation: friendship. In this case the Mac is not just a box, it's a little friend. Is there anyone who'd happily throw a friend in the trash just because they'd known them for five years? You want to keep your friendship going for as long as possible and the same is true of Classic Macs. Yes you could trade in your Mac for the latest model but then you'd have to get to know them all over again...and what about your old 'friend'? Most people wouldn't do this with people so why the difference with machines? Sometimes there can be good reason for upgrading or replacing (new needs etc.) but many Mac users, especially Classic Mac users, will still keep their old machine alongside their new machine, despite the fact that their new machine is far, far more advanced. As in life, it's possible to have more than one friend at once.
The Rise of The Cults (and that's not a spelling mistake)
So far I've mentioned Apple Macs predominantly. This is understandable as they're very much my passion in life (for the reasons explained above) but fandom exists for all manner of things, both computing and non-computing, tangible and intangible, real and even unreal. Whereas in the past groups of fans existed all on their own, the rise of technology has allowed them to meet up and share their interest. No longer do people have to feel alone and isolated in their love of a treasured item/interest - the chances are that there's someone (or a group of someones) out there that feel the same way. Is this activity normal? It's very difficult to answer this as there was no way to ascertain the levels of interest. With the exception of the most extreme fanatical fans, most lovers of 'whatever' would remain anonymous. If you were to see people walking down the street then you'd never know whether they had a passion for anything...unless they were dressed as a Dalek or something equally extreme (and then you'd probably not want to get to know them anyway as they're just that bit too fanatical).
It's this view of the 'extreme' fan brought into the 21st century that kind of clouds people's perceptions of fans: Everyone who likes Star Trek must be single, overweight and male; All stamp collectors must be nerdy little bespectacled men who wear sleeveless pullovers; Train spotters must be dull blokes called Colin; Real ale drinkers all have to have beards and rucksacks. The perceptions of fans and fanatics is very fixed in the public's subconscious but, if you get past the perception, there are far more fans who look just like 'normal' people. That's because they are normal people.
Most people have a hobby. Ok some are more depraved and extreme than others but most people have something that grabs their interest. It's all too easy to sneer and poke fun at people because of their interests but who's to say what's 'normal' and what isn't? The wife is a big George Michael fan (I know, the shame) but to look at her she looks quite normal. I, of course, am a Mac fan...and I think it's about time I got back onto the subject (although there is point to it all so please stick with it).
The Mac, as a piece of desktop equipment, is a different beast to the majority of the machines seen on desktops, and the dominance of the PC has driven it to the point of near extinction (especially in the late 90's) but the Apple brand remains and the company still produces a stunning array of machines that push the boundaries of desktop computing (and beyond) and still 'think different'. Being a confirmed CMA I now tread the fine line of being a Mac lover in a PC world - which isn't as easy as it first seems.
Annoyingly this situation doesn't exist, to such a distinct degree, in other aspects of life. If someone owns car A instead of car B then there isn't anything other than the occasional lighthearted rivalry. Barbie fans don't despise Sindy fans with a vengeance. With Macs though it's different and Mac users (especially Classic Mac users) are almost openly derided by their PC using peers. What's the driving force and motivation behind this though?
OK, It's War
The rivalry between PC users and Mac users is well known within the computing industry and the reasons behind it are long and numerous but, as I see it, generally come down to: Did Microsoft 'steal' the idea of Windows from Mac OS? (If so, did Apple steal the idea from Xerox?) Is the Mac more stable than Windows? Is something better merely because it has greater use? This isn't an arguement that I want to get into and it's best two say that both sides have their viewpoints and not much is going to change them. I can see the pluses and minuses to both machines/systems so let's leave it at that.
To be an open fan of anything isn't easy but to be a Mac fan in a PC world is often very difficult. The Mac, being as 'rare' as it is, is something strange and unknown by the majority of the computer literate public and therefore the natural 'dislike of the unlike' attitude takes over. If it's not the same as everyone else's machine then it must be wrong - right? We're all resistant to change and even something as simple as having a taskbar at the top of the screen instead of the bottom is enough to put many users off. This I can live with and, once you get past the puzzled looks when you confess your allegiance, becomes second nature and almost routine.
More annoying is the concept of 'baiting'. Most people will accept that there's a difference between Macs and PCs and that you've chosen a Mac - whatever your reasons are. Some people won't though and will all too happily launch into a diatribe about why the Mac is far, far inferior to the PC and how you're 'wasting your time and money'. This kind of 'discussion' (term used reservedly) is another event that most Mac users and CMAs have to come up against time and time again, but somehow it never seems to sink in. Yes I know that the Mac can't run Windows...but why is that a problem? Yes I know that the Mac is devoid of software by comparisson...but surely what it has got is excellent (even Microsoft admits that MS Office for Mac is the best version available, regardless of operating system)? Yes I know that the Mac is crap for playing games on but if I want to have a games machine then I'll get a games machine. PC users who bait Mac users are all too happy to quote facts and figures but the vast majority of them actually mean nothing at all. Yes the Intel Pentium 4 runs at 3GHz compared to your 'puny' Motorola G4 running at only 2GHz, but in reality this is like comparing an elaphant and a whale - they're both big things but how can you, realisitically, compare how fast they can move? It's a totally pointless debate.
Help Is Out There
It would be easy to assume that fans are exiled from society and feel totally isolated but the rise of the internet and the online forums has allowed these little pockets of fandom to link up. The internet, as we know, is ignorant of borders and physical location and people from across the globe can share ideas and thoughts just as easily as if they're sat next to one another. Are these pockets of 'resistence' hoping to rise up and overthrow the evil empires of, for example, Intel and Microsoft? Well, err no. These two massive symbols of the PC industry are just as likely to get hatred directed towards them from PC users as they are from devoted Mac users (but, to be honest, Mac users have got far better things to do with their time and are generally far nicer, social accepting, and friendly than their PC counterparts and have learned to live and let live).
From my experience Mac users (I can't speak for other types of fans so bear with me) use forums to share knowledge and there's practically no Mac vs Windows debates or PC directed vitriol. The Classic Mac forums that remain allow the select band of CMAs to feel less isolated, to feel as if they're actually doing something useful. They allow you to realise that you're not the only person who's looking 'outside of the box' (regardless of what 'box' that is) and thinking differently to the majority of the computing world. Is this dangerous? Is it wrong to have people who don't accept what the majority accepts? I don't want to get involved in a debate about the pros and cons of free thinking but, from its earliest days, the Mac has been seen as a machine that dared to 'think differently' and was used by people who didn't want to be constrained by technology or told what and how to think. I'm starting to sound like a crazed cultist but is it wrong to question things and look at things differently? To cut a long story short, the world needs people who think differently and question things, otherwise we'd never get anywhere.
So if forums are filled with people just sharing information and experiences, why is there a need to destroy them? Here are groups of like-minded people who simply want to share their hobby and let the world get on. They're not looking to overthrow governments or change the habits of millions of people, just to be able to come together as a community.
I'm linking back to one of my driving reasons for writing this whole essay of gibberish, and that's the destruction of the CMA forum at JagsHouse. As I stated many, many paragraphs ago, JagsHouse quite happily plodded on and users posted questions and got help with their problems - not doing any harm to anyone or doing (or saying) anything to offend (it sometimes got a bit 'racy' when someone would suggest that the PowerBook 140 was superior to the PowerBook 170)(it isn't by the way). The great thing about this forum was that it was open. Nobody had to login, there was no concept of rankings (so nobody got bigheaded or jealous) and everything was simple. As Alec Guinness said in Star Wars 'that was before the dark times...'.
By its very nature JagsHouse allowed anyone to post without any traceability, and it was very simple to post a comment under an assumed name...or even somebody else's name. This was the seed that has eventually led to the demise of this great resource (as I write this the forum has been moved to another site but there's much unhappiness that Jag was forced to give in to electronic terrorism and who knows if it will survive). What was once a forum filled with questions and discussions was reduced to a tattered mess with comments being posted all over the place, false information being given, insults being made (in other people's names) and eventually pornography and the ubiquitous adverts for 'organ enhancement' medicines.
You couldn't move for gibberish, racist comments and threats of legal action. And what was the cause of all this? A single 13 year old. What his motivations were we may never know, but by having his own site with his own forum, one can only assume that jealousy played a big part in his war on a bunch of poor fans. The conflict took place over many, many months, at one point with the wee lad getting his 'lawyer' to post comments stating that Jag was breaking various federal laws by having a link to his site. It's things like this that really do confirm your faith in human nature and the future of all mankind.
But what could we do? Admittedly the valiant continued to post and tried to ignore the rubbish but soon attacks became personal. I myself was hauled over the coals merely for being British and for stating that I was a Delphi coder (to re-assure someone that I actually knew what I was talking about and could help them with thier problem). Yes, both crimes against humanity and I shall be having a lethal injection next week because of them. This is the power and the curse of the internet. While it's a big wide world of information and entertainment, it can also be used to destroy and upset. Here a concerted effort was made to destroy a group of fans who didn't want to do anything but share repair tips but we could do nothing to defend ourselves. Yes the forum could have been moved to a 'secure' site but why should it have been? Jag had his reasons for not moving it and these should be respected (I certainly respected them).
Am I over-reacting? Is the world really going to miss the demise of a single site inhabited by a bunch of Mac loving freaks? Probably not but I'll miss it if it dies. In the long term forums like this (and the knowledge that they contain) can end up being the only way to answer questions and keep memories alive. An overly sentimental thought? Probably, but would you like to have one of your few pleasures snuffed out for all time?
It Ain't Wrong And I Ain't No Freak
Fans come in all shapes and sizes and pretty much anything can become the worthy of fandom. This doesn't make being a fan wrong, indeed almost everybody is a fan of something - it's just that some people are more extreme than others (which leads to becoming a fanatic - and that's a bad thing =;) ). Being a fan of something no longer means having to shut yourself away in a vain attempt to avoid having fun poked in your direction and, while it may not be advisable to openly admit that you're a fan of doing strange things to vegetables (for example, I hasten to add - I most certainly don't do strange things to vegetables), it shouldn't be something to be ashamed of.
To draw a line between the fan and the fanatic is very difficult but it's fair to say that anyone who won't listen and insists that they're always right (regardless of anything to the contrary) is probably a fanatic and is probably best avoided. Fanatics are what give fans a bad name - they always go that bit too far, they're always that bit too vocal, and they nearly always become a stereotypical image of a fan (usually tarnishing the image of the entire fan base and making fans ashamed to admit their interest). With their rabid devotion, fanatics become 'easy targets' and it's this type of fan that attracts the attention of those people who want to attack and destroy a community. Sometimes, as in the case of the JagsHouse community, this just happens anyway but fanatics make the job so much easier as they rise to the bait.
What was the point of all this rubbish? Hmm, that's a tricky one. If I had to sum it up in one sentence it would probably be: Don't be ashamed to be a fan. Either that or: Stick with it and don't let the grind you down.
|
|
