6 Oct
1998
6 Oct
'98
12:28 p.m.
There's some evidence to suggest that the Lisa is
the Apple VI, which raises
the question of what happened to IV and V.
I think it would be more accurate to say that Apple considered naming the
Lisa the Apple IV. "Lisa" was originally just a code name, after all.
Tom Owad
--
Sysop of Caesarville Online
Client software at: <http://home.earthlink.net/~tomowad/>
6 Oct
6 Oct
2:08 p.m.
I wrote:
There's some evidence to suggest that the Lisa is
the Apple VI, which raises
the question of what happened to IV and V.
Sam wrote:
Nobody has the enormous free time you seem to have
that allows you to
study Lisa's, so better to start explaining.
Enormous free time? I wish I had that. Before Apple switched to their
current marketing product numbering scheme
<letter><four digits><two letters>[/<two letters>]
their original product numbering was of the form
A<digit><letter><four digits>
where the first digit was the computer model it was related to, and the
letter designated the type of product. For instance, A2Dxxxx was software
on diskette for the Apple ][, A2Mxxxx was a manual for the Apple ][ or related
products, and IIRC the computers themselves were A2Cxxxx. For the Apple ///
products, the first digit was three. For Lisa products, it was 6. For
some cross-platform products it was 9.
Tom Owad <tomowad(a)earthlink.net>
I think it would be more accurate to say that Apple
considered naming the
Lisa the Apple IV. "Lisa" was originally just a code name, after all.
In what way can that be said to be more accurate? Do you have any firsthand
knowledge of any such plans?
Aside from the marketing model numbers, the only information I've ever found
regarding alternate names that may have been considered was the story about
the name "Applause".
Cheers,
Eric
6:17 p.m.
New subject: Product Numbering, was Re: Somebody has a C65 on eBay
Eric Smith wrote:
Before Apple switched to their current marketing
product numbering scheme
<letter><four digits><two letters>[/<two letters>]
their original product numbering was of the form
A<digit><letter><four digits>
Information like this is rather useful! Do you (or anyone else) have
similar information for other computers?
7 Oct
7 Oct
7:24 a.m.
On 6 Oct 1998, Eric Smith wrote:
Enormous free time? I wish I had that. Before Apple
switched to their
current marketing product numbering scheme
<letter><four digits><two letters>[/<two letters>]
their original product numbering was of the form
A<digit><letter><four digits>
where the first digit was the computer model it was related to, and the
letter designated the type of product. For instance, A2Dxxxx was software
on diskette for the Apple ][, A2Mxxxx was a manual for the Apple ][ or related
products, and IIRC the computers themselves were A2Cxxxx. For the Apple ///
products, the first digit was three. For Lisa products, it was 6. For
some cross-platform products it was 9.
I don't think this indicates that the Lisa was unofficially the Apple VI.
I think its simply the product group Apple deicded to put the Lisa into.
I think what happened to A4 and A5 is that Apple probably planned some
products that would adopt those group numbers but they never materialized.
Sam Alternate e-mail: dastar(a)siconic.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ever onward.
Coming in 1999: Vintage Computer Festival 3.0
See http://www.vintage.org/vcf for details!
[Last web site update: 09/21/98]
10:08 a.m.
Sam wrote:
I don't think this indicates that the Lisa was
unofficially the Apple VI.
I think its simply the product group Apple deicded to put the Lisa into.
It certainly didn't officially have the name 'Apple VI' (or Apple 6), but
it is obvious that marketing viewed it that way, since they were responsible
for assigning the product codes. The engineers may not have, but so what?
In a company the size of Apple (even in 1982/83), engineers rarely get any
say in the names of products. The Lisa is actually a rare example of the
engineering name being adopted by marketing.
Anyhow, this is about a zillion percent more evidence for someone (but not
necessarily everyone) in Apple considering it to be an Apple VI than there is
for it ever having been considered an Apple IV.
3:32 p.m.
On 7 Oct 1998, Eric Smith wrote:
Sam wrote:
Or they simply needed to fit the Lisa product line into their existing
numbering system, and arbitrarily chose A6.
I don't think this indicates that the Lisa
was unofficially the Apple VI.
I think its simply the product group Apple deicded to put the Lisa into.
It certainly didn't officially have the name 'Apple VI' (or Apple 6), but
it is obvious that marketing viewed it that way, since they were responsible
for assigning the product codes. The engineers may not have, but so what? Anyhow, this is about a zillion percent more evidence
for someone (but
not necessarily everyone) in Apple considering it to be an Apple VI than
there is for it ever having been considered an Apple IV.
I don't know how imporant the argument is (probably not much) but I don't
think there's any evidence to support the supposition that marketing
viewed the Lisa as the Apple 6, or any successor to the Apple ///. It
would be neat to know what went into A4 and A5, but I don't think that
would lead to any revelations. Your premise is based upon suspicions by
some that the Lisa was actually the Apple IV, and I don't see any evidence
of that either.
When I get Steve Jobs to speak at the VCF in a couple years then you can
ask him personally :)
Sam Alternate e-mail: dastar(a)siconic.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ever onward.
Coming in 1999: Vintage Computer Festival 3.0
See http://www.vintage.org/vcf for details!
[Last web site update: 09/21/98]
3:50 p.m.
I wrote:
It certainly didn't officially have the name
'Apple VI' (or Apple 6), but
it is obvious that marketing viewed it that way, since they were responsible
for assigning the product codes.
Sam replied:
Or they simply needed to fit the Lisa product line
into their existing
numbering system, and arbitrarily chose A6.
Yes, it may have been entirely arbitrary. More likely, some other projects
were assigned the A4 and A5 numbers. However, my point was that no matter how
'6' happened to be chosen, from a marketing point of view that made it an
Apple 6.
Based on your reasoning, you could just as easily claim that the Pentium 60
was not really an 80501. After all, Intel never used the '80501' number
in big print in their advertising.
Eric
9426
days inactive
9427
days old
6 comments
4 participants
participants (4)
-
dastar＠ncal.verio.com -
eric＠brouhaha.com -
marvin＠rain.org -
tomowad＠earthlink.net