>Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1998 18:51:05 -0600 (CST)
Yes, but the iMac isn't an incremental improvement. It is in no way
different from the other G3s, except for various annyances (built in
monitor, no floppy drive, no SCSI), and USB (I don't like it). I
wouldn't say the iMac:Mac::Mac:Lisa, but iMac:Mac::Platinum Mac:Beige
Mac. It's an item people want because it looks cool, indeed precisely
what Stevie was thinking. And, it's not even translucent! It has a
metal case inside the plastic one! In fact, if the list is arond in
10 years, how about the person that's right buys the other an iMac?
>> iMac came out. All of the detail to which you refer will be forgotten
>> in 15 years. By historic, I mean of the magnitude of the original
>> macintosh, or the PC XT, or Apple II, or Altair, or C64, and others.
>> These truly changed the face of computing, unlike the iMac.
>
>Puuhlease! (Is Roger Rabbit still around?)
>
>What was historic about the Mac? It was a cheaper, better Lisa. A
mere
>evolutionary improvement over another Apple product (which was just the
>commercializtion of one of PARC's concepts).
>
>The Apple ][ was just an incremental improvement over the Apple 1.
>
>The Altair was a small incremental improvement over the Mark-8, Scelbi,
>etc.
>
>The C64 was cheap. And the PC (not the PC-XT) was just IBM's badge on
a
>dull box.
>
>This should teach you two things: don't underestimate small incremental
>improvements and/or "panache", and don't be a revolutionary (nobody
will
>remember you).
>
>-- Doug
>
>
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at
http://www.hotmail.com
Received on Mon Nov 09 1998 - 20:45:36 GMT