6 Jun
2014
6 Jun
'14
6:10 p.m.
On 06/06/14 11:58 AM, Fred Cisin wrote:
Apple II acolytes weren't the Mac market and didn't become Mac
loyalists, on the whole. (That was what I was trying to imply, but I
didn't spell it out.)
The Mac was pitched to a new market, and I saw first hand that this
worked. It could actually live up to the "not what you thought a
computer was" promise (or, "the computer for the rest of us").
Yes.
I'm not saying the Mac was perfect, but it doesn't take too much
imagination (of the alternative) to see that we are probably better off
for having had the alternative branch of development.
--Toby
> I guess it
really helps to have a user community of devoted acolytes.
On Fri, 6 Jun 2014, Toby
Thain wrote:
...Which they didn't exactly have in January,
1984. :)
You never met any of the Apple][ acolytes??!? If they had, the Lisa may not have failed.
Price might have also been a factor.
The Mac brought that down to a point where it could be considered, albeit
unfavorably. If you bought "COMPLETE SYSTEM", then PC and
Mac were close to even.
...
Being PC compatible would not have made any sense
for Apple from a
marketing perspective; their angle was "being the alternative". And the
competition appears to have been, ah, fruitful. Apple was able to do
things differently (e.g. picking 68000 over 808x; building an entirely
new, carefully considered UI Toolbox and integrated applications) and
users had a meaningful choice.
There are advantages and disadvantages to "starting fresh" V "upgrading
what's already available". (Such as not having to add kludges on top of
kludges, V software already available) Documentation revisions took much
longer than the PORT for Wordstar, SuperCalc, etc.
--
Grumpy Ol' Fred cisin at xenosoft.com