On 7 Oct 1998, Eric Smith wrote:
> 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?
Or they simply needed to fit the Lisa product line into their existing
numbering system, and arbitrarily chose A6.
> 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_at_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]
Received on Wed Oct 07 1998 - 19:32:06 BST