dtt@unirot.UUCP (07/16/86)
It's been three years and six months since Apple first showed the Lisa. Just to remind everyone, it was a machine much like the Mac, except that it had a 12" screen, 1 meg of memory, slots, and an operating system which allowed multiple applicatins to be visible on the screen at once (in their own windows) while keeping the desktop visible at all times. Each application was, in effect, a "multi-document" application, because multiple windows on the same application were allowed. Clicking in a different application's window (or a desktop window) changed the menu bar appropriately. The filesystem was a hierarchical one. Full cutting and pasting between applications was supported (and there was no need to quit an application to paste something into another application, because they could both be on the screen at once). It came with a hard disk drive and two floppies, each holding about 800K. Development was done in Clascal, Apple's object-oriented version of Pascal. The machine even ran Unix as an option. Now, after herculean investments of time, effort, and money on the part of Apple, the developer community, and the user community, it appears that we haven't moved forward much at all. The up-and coming Mac (likely to be a few months away), will probably have 1 Meg of memory, a 12" screen, slots, Andy Hertzfeld's Servant (a new desktop manager), HFS, and MacApp (Apple's new commercial object-oriented Pascal) for development, and a Unix option. It should also have 2 800K floppies and a hard disk drive. This machine bears more than a superficial resemblance to the original Lisa of January 1983. Sure, it costs less, and there are more applications available, but its basic characteristics don't show the 3 1/2 years that have passed since the Lisa's introduction. One would expect that it would have taken far less time to deliver an affordable system that employs (almost exculsively) established Lisa techonology. Any comments? - David Temkin ...caip!unirot!dtt or ...caip!topaz!unipress!dt
briand@tekig4.UUCP (Brian Diehm) (07/17/86)
>It's been three years and six months since Apple first showed the >Lisa. > >Now, after herculean investments of time, effort, and money on the >part of Apple, the developer community, and the user community, it >appears that we haven't moved forward much at all. The up-and coming >Mac (likely to be a few months away), will probably have 1 Meg of >memory, a 12" screen, slots, Andy Hertzfeld's Servant (a new desktop >manager), HFS, and MacApp (Apple's new commercial object-oriented >Pascal) for development, and a Unix option. It should also have 2 >800K floppies and a hard disk drive. This machine bears more than a >superficial resemblance to the original Lisa of January 1983. Sure, >it costs less, and there are more applications available, but its >basic characteristics don't show the 3 1/2 years that have passed >since the Lisa's introduction. One would expect that it would have >taken far less time to deliver an affordable system that employs >(almost exculsively) established Lisa techonology. > >Any comments? Sure. Lisa was WAY ahead of its time and way ahead of the market in terms of sophistication. If you're a businessman, marketplace success is the ONLY yardstick. If you're a human being you realize that people don't always make smart purchasing decisions. Or am I wrong, and the PC does it all? -Brian Diehm Tektronix, Inc. (SDA - Standard Disclaimers Apply!)
jimb@amdcad.UUCP (07/19/86)
In article <867@unirot.UUCP> dtt@unirot.UUCP (David Temkin) writes: >It's been three years and six months since Apple first showed the >Lisa. Just to remind everyone, it was a machine much like the Mac, >except that it had a 12" screen, 1 meg of memory, slots, and an >operating system which allowed multiple applicatins to be visible on >the screen at once (in their own windows) while keeping the desktop >visible at all times. Each application was, in effect, a >... >Now, after herculean investments of time, effort, and money on the >part of Apple, the developer community, and the user community, it >appears that we haven't moved forward much at all. The up-and coming >Mac (likely to be a few months away), will probably have 1 Meg of >memory, a 12" screen, slots, Andy Hertzfeld's Servant (a new desktop >manager), HFS, and MacApp (Apple's new commercial object-oriented >Pascal) for development, and a Unix option. It should also have 2 >800K floppies and a hard disk drive. This machine bears more than a >superficial resemblance to the original Lisa of January 1983. Sure, >it costs less, and there are more applications available, but its >basic characteristics don't show the 3 1/2 years that have passed >since the Lisa's introduction. One would expect that it would have >taken far less time to deliver an affordable system that employs >(almost exculsively) established Lisa techonology. > >Any comments? Yes. I agree with your observation, the Mac soon to be introduced will provide us with the functionality of the LIsa at approx. one-third the cost. No. I don't think three and a half years is an excessive amount of time. I think you are taking to narrow a view. It is more like seven years to get the Xerox star environment to an affordable price range. Apple will have done it. No one else has. And yes, six months after Apple does it, Atari may do it for half Apple's price. Ain't reverse engineering wonderful? I think you should look around, see if anyone else has done it, and conclude from the fact nobody else has that it might be harder than you thought. Unless, of course, you think nobody else thinks it is worth doing? -- Jim Budler Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. (408) 749-5806 Usenet: {ucbvax,decwrl,ihnp4,allegra,intelca}!amdcad!jimb Compuserve: 72415,1200 Once and for all: I like my Macintosh
dlc@lanl.UUCP (07/19/86)
> >This machine bears more than a > >superficial resemblance to the original Lisa of January 1983. Sure, > >it costs less, and there are more applications available, but its > >basic characteristics don't show the 3 1/2 years that have passed > >since the Lisa's introduction. > If you're a businessman, marketplace success is the ONLY > yardstick. I saw a Lisa demonstrated in 1983. The slightest deviation from the script of the demo crashed the system. At any time, a 30-second "disk re-organization" could interrupt your work. They didn't mention Clascal, or any language for developing your own programs. Only a word processor, project manager, and two draw/paint type programs were available. There was not even a terminal emulator. The disks were even wierder than the 3-1/2 inch format on the Macintosh, and the media was unavailable at a price double the price-per- density of other 5-1/4 inch media, and four times the per-disk price. The hard disk was slower than 8 inch floppies (so are 5-1/4 inch floppies on Big Blue's machines.) The only thing the Lisa had going for it was a bit- mapped screen and maybe the mouse. It was not just expensive, it didn't work. The only answer one could reach, for business or personal reasons, was no. A year later, the Macintosh was cheaper, although still over-priced. But it worked. And it had a language (Microsoft BASIC) in which a terminal emulator was written (MacTEP.) So there was a foundation for growth in the Macintosh. The only reason to ever have a Lisa was to develop Macintosh software, and Apple never marketed that application through their dealers. But even the Lisa was not the unmitigated disaster the Apple /// was. I've heard that after about a year, Apple ///'s began to pop out chips from the mother-board with such force they hit the top cover of the cabinet.
mazlack@ernie.Berkeley.EDU (Lawrence J. Mazlack) (07/21/86)
>It's been three years and six months since Apple first showed the >Lisa. Just to remind everyone, it was a machine much like the Mac, >except that it had a 12" screen, 1 meg of memory, slots, and an >operating system which allowed multiple applicatins to be visible on >the screen at once (in their own windows) while keeping the desktop >visible at all times. Each application was, in effect, a >"multi-document" application, because multiple windows on the same . . >could both be on the screen at once). It came with a hard disk drive >and two floppies, each holding about 800K. Development was done in >Clascal, Apple's object-oriented version of Pascal. The machine even >ran Unix as an option. > >Now, after herculean investments of time, effort, and money on the >part of Apple, the developer community, and the user community, it >appears that we haven't moved forward much at all. The up-and coming >Mac (likely to be a few months away), will probably have 1 Meg of . . >basic characteristics don't show the 3 1/2 years that have passed >since the Lisa's introduction. One would expect that it would have >taken far less time to deliver an affordable system that employs >(almost exculsively) established Lisa techonology. > >Any comments? > Mostly just the old ones questioning why Apple dropped the Lisa line originally. Doing so both was technically questionable and lost the confidence of the business community - a confidence that Apple still has yet to recover. Larry Mazlack UUCP {tektronix,dual,sun,ihnp4,decvax}!ucbvax!ucbernie!mazlack New style mazlack@ernie.berkeley.edu ARPA | CSNET mazlack%ernie@berkeley.ARPA BITNET mazlack@ucbernie.BITNET telephone (415) 528-0496 snail CS Dept, 571 Evans, U. California, Berkeley, CA 94720
chuq@sun.uucp (Chuq Von Rospach) (07/22/86)
> Mostly just the old ones questioning why Apple dropped the Lisa line originally. > Doing so both was technically questionable and lost the confidence of the > business community - a confidence that Apple still has yet to recover. > > Larry Mazlack This seems to continue to be a popular myth. Mac's now significantly outsell the Apple ][, Apple just announced record sales and profits, and they are selling as many as they can make, while IBM is moaning and groaning about market share. If that is lack of confidence, I don't want to see rampant enthusiasm. The only people who continue to believe in the lack of confidence in the business community are the business writers. Mac's are showing up all over the place, and Excel has given them a powerful tool to use it (the failure of Jazz didn't kill the mac, either, as many were wont to claim... Why is it that so many people want to act like John Dvorak and ignore reality? That Mac isn't a failure, no matter how hard you may wish... -- Chuq Von Rospach chuq%plaid@sun.COM CompuServe: 73317,635 {decwrl,hplabs,ihnp4,seismo}!sun!plaid!chuq O how they cling and wrangle, some who claim Of Brahamana and recluse the honoured name! For, quarrelling, each to his view they claim, Such folk see only one side of a thing. -- Buddha -- The Elephant and the Blind Men
bromo@mips.UUCP (07/23/86)
In article <14942@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> mazlack@ernie.Berkeley.EDU.UUCP (Lawrence J. Mazlack) writes: >>It's been three years and six months since Apple first showed the >>Lisa. Just to remind everyone, it was a machine much like the Mac, >>except that it had a 12" screen, 1 meg of memory, slots, and an >. >. >>Clascal, Apple's object-oriented version of Pascal. The machine even >>ran Unix as an option. >> >>Now, after herculean investments of time, effort, and money on the >>part of Apple, the developer community, and the user community, it >>appears that we haven't moved forward much at all. The up-and coming >>Mac (likely to be a few months away), will probably have 1 Meg of >. >. >>basic characteristics don't show the 3 1/2 years that have passed >>since the Lisa's introduction. One would expect that it would have >>taken far less time to deliver an affordable system that employs >>(almost exculsively) established Lisa techonology. >> >>Any comments? >> > Providing the same functionality for about 1/2 to 1/3 the price is a definite improvement. >Mostly just the old ones questioning why Apple dropped the Lisa line originally. >Doing so both was technically questionable and lost the confidence of the >business community - a confidence that Apple still has yet to recover. The Lisa never had the confidence of the business community, which is why it no longer exsists. The Mac HAS gained the confidence of the via community thru desktop publishing and to a lesser extent Excel. Hence Mac sales of 30K units a month. > >Larry Mazlack > UUCP {tektronix,dual,sun,ihnp4,decvax}!ucbvax!ucbernie!mazlack > New style mazlack@ernie.berkeley.edu > ARPA | CSNET mazlack%ernie@berkeley.ARPA > BITNET mazlack@ucbernie.BITNET > telephone (415) 528-0496 > snail CS Dept, 571 Evans, U. California, Berkeley, CA 94720 -- UUCP: {decvax,ucbvax,ihnp4}!decwrl!mips!bromo DDD: 415-960-1200 USPS: MIPS Computer Systems Inc, 1330 Charleston Rd, Mt View, CA 94043
mazlack@ernie.Berkeley.EDU (Lawrence J. Mazlack) (07/25/86)
>> Doing so both was technically questionable and lost the confidence of the >> business community - a confidence that Apple still has yet to recover. > >This seems to continue to be a popular myth. Mac's now significantly >outsell the Apple ][, Apple just announced record sales and profits, and >they are selling as many as they can make, while IBM is moaning and groaning >about market share. If that is lack of confidence, I don't want to see >rampant enthusiasm. > >The only people who continue to believe in the lack of confidence in the >business community are the business writers .... I believe that while Apple has record profits, unit sales are down. But, whatever the case, Macs (and I love them, sell them in turn-keys, develop for them) are really not penetrating the business market except for stand alones such as desk-top publishing. The primary reason, I believe, is that Apple does not have a customer orientation, it has a technology orientation. Consequently, the iron is interesting, but the support is inconsistent. Also, largely forgotten is the customer's costs of software development, personnel trainning, and technical support - all of which, for a business, far exceed the cost of the iron itself. ...Larry Mazlack mazlack.ernie.berkeley.edu
holly@dartvax.UUCP (Holly Cabell) (07/26/86)
> The up-and coming > Mac (likely to be a few months away), will probably have 1 Meg of etc. This new mac sounds very interesting, but I haven't heard anything about it until this artical. Is it better than the mac pluses? Is it worth it to buy a mac+ now, or wait for this one to come out? Any ideas on prices, other specs, etc? In other words, More Info Please?!?!?!?!? --Ian Cabell at holly@dartvax.whatever > or ...caip!topaz!unipress!dt *** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE *** -- --johnc at [the.world] ! dartvax ! holly
brian@prism.UUCP (07/31/86)
Rumors for the new Macintosh-like product from Apple:
1) 21" screen - they are going after the CAD CAM Market...
2) 11 megabytes of main memory
3) Price: $7000
4) When? September
----
brian {mit-eddie, ihnp4!inmet, wjh12, cca, datacube}!mirror!brian
Mirror Systems 2067 Massachusetts Avenue Cambridge, MA, 02140
Telephone: 617-661-0777 extension 141
(((((((( * ))))))))
---
These opinions are solely my own and have nothing to do with anything
that might cause the people who pay me to stop. (Go find your own rumors).
(Incoming!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)