Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 2nd Feb 2013 00:02 UTC, submitted by MOS6510
Apple "Thirty years ago, Apple unveiled the Apple Lisa, a pioneering machine that introduced the mouse-driven graphical user interface to a wide audience and opened a new chapter in personal computer history. The Mac borrowed heavily from the Lisa, and the Mac went on to great things while the Lisa floundered. As a result, it's tempting to treat the Lisa as merely a footnote in the history of Apple. But as anyone who has used a real Lisa knows, Apple's first GUI-based computer played host to many distinctive quirks and traits that tend to get overlooked in the history books. The machine's 30th anniversary is as good a time as any to take a look at a handful of both odd and useful features that truly made the Lisa something unique." A bit lacking in the meat department, but still fun.
Thread beginning with comment 551284
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: No
by UltraZelda64 on Sun 3rd Feb 2013 19:08 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: No"
UltraZelda64
Member since:
2006-12-05

The machine's 30th anniversary is as good a time as any to take a look at a handful of both odd and useful features that truly made the Lisa something unique.

I didn't see a "handful of features" in the article that could be classified as either:

1. Not a ridiculous bug that any company would rightly be slammed to the ground for.
2. Not some kind of bizarre design decision that makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.
3. Actually a worthwhile feature for the user.
4. Or even a "feature" at all.

Really, the article leaves no wonder as to why the damn thing didn't take off in the first place... everything that the article claims makes the system "unique" is an undesirable trait.

Sorry, but the article is sorely lacking on what the summary suggests. It is a collection of basically nothing but "odd" bugs and design decisions. Useful features? Don't think so. "Features" at all? Not at all in my view. "Odd" is the only word they got even somewhat right.

Edited 2013-02-03 19:15 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[4]: No
by MOS6510 on Sun 3rd Feb 2013 19:20 in reply to "RE[3]: No"
MOS6510 Member since:
2011-05-12

Not at all in my view.


I guess this is the core of your argument, it's your opinion vs the writer's.

Personally I don't care if something is a feature, bug, stupid or clever. If it's "odd" I find it interesting.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[5]: No
by UltraZelda64 on Sun 3rd Feb 2013 19:31 in reply to "RE[4]: No"
UltraZelda64 Member since:
2006-12-05

Not really; the core of my argument is that the sentence I quoted from the beginning of the article and the summary sounded like the rest of the article would be an interesting read. It most definitely was not.

Clearly the author failed miserably to get his point across. Just a bunch of bugs and other undesirable behavior, everything odd, but nothing of interest as a "useful" feature whatsoever. I was expecting after reading that line for something interesting, but no--nothing but pointless crap. Crap that would make you stay far away from Apple if you were in the market for a new computer at that time period.

Did that computer have anything going for it? Anything at all? After reading that article I was left with a firm no. If the author was trying to raise awareness of the genius of the Macintosh's predecessor, he failed miserably at that too. I went in looking for actual features and interesting and unique ways that it did things... and all I left with knowledge of were bugs and poor system design.

Edited 2013-02-03 19:40 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2