[cctalk] Re: The Mac at 40
On Thu, 25 Jan 2024 at 03:56, Fred Cisin via cctalk wrote: > Besides, most of us had solidified our wrong perspectives and incorrect > beliefs and assumptiond long before Wikipedia came along. Ha! Excellent. Well said. As it happens I'm trying to do a quick retrospective for El Reg right now, focussing on myth busting. -- Liam Proven ~ Profile: https://about.me/liamproven Email: lpro...@cix.co.uk ~ gMail/gTalk/FB: lpro...@gmail.com Twitter/LinkedIn: lproven ~ Skype: liamproven IoM: (+44) 7624 277612: UK: (+44) 7939-087884 Czech [+ WhatsApp/Telegram/Signal]: (+420) 702-829-053
[cctalk] Re: The MAC at 40
-Original Message- From: Sellam Abraham Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2024 2:16 PM To: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts Subject: [cctalk] Re: The MAC at 40 On Wed, Jan 24, 2024 at 2:04 PM Andrew Diller via cctalk < <mailto:cctalk@classiccmp.org> cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote: That > story of "stolen from PARC" IMHO is just weak writing back when the > Internet didn't have the info it has today which gives full context over what > was going on. I read a narrative more recently that more accurately depicted the actual events. I wish I could remember any details about it, otherwise I would link it up so others could read it. But basically, Jobs never stole anything. He was pretty much invited to take a look, and then entered into some sort of exclusivity deal (I may be wrong about this detail) to use Xerox tech. Xerox upper execs didn't see a market in this kind of hardware; copiers were their game, so they didn't get what they had, and didn't care. If anything, Apple should be thanked for taking what would have been deadend technology at Xerox and making a product with it. Basically. Sellam Xerox was a pre-IPO investor in Apple and Xerox Development Corp (XDC) is reported to have granted Jobs visits to PARC in December 1979. Jes Raskin claims to have also facilitated at least one visit after the investment. What is not well known is Jobs had a visit to PARC prior to the Xerox investment which was conducted by the President of Shugart Corporation, then a subsidiary of Xerox. Jobs had offered pre-IPO stock to the Shugart executives, but when they requested advice from XDC as to whether it was OK, XDC took on the investment. Apple was then Shugart’s largest customer and needing to kill some time before a meeting Shugart’s President, Don Massaro, took Jobs thru PARC where Jobs purportedly first viewed the various technologies. It is lost to history what sort of disclosure agreements existed at that time between Apple and Shugart Corp. Tom
[cctalk] Re: The MAC at 40
> On Jan 24, 2024, at 7:12 PM, Bill Degnan via cctalk > wrote: > > LoL oops. Strike my comment! Maybe leave unstruck this part though! > We should all support > our fellow vintage computer historians, I know he put a lot of time into > it. I've seen parts of the documentary already, and it's very interesting, he's got some good interviews in there and he's poured his heart into making this. I'm impressed with what I've seen so far, and I'm looking forward to watching the rest. Definitely worth checking it out! Even if it IS about the Lisa and not the Mac. :D -Paul > On Jan 24, 2024, at 7:12 PM, Bill Degnan via cctalk > wrote: > > LoL oops. Strike my comment! > > On Wed, Jan 24, 2024, 7:09 PM Tony Jones via cctalk > wrote: > >> On Wed, Jan 24, 2024 at 3:58 PM Bill Degnan via cctalk < >> cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote: >> >>> You all should check out David Greelish's new documentary on the Mac. >>> >> >> Sounds good except it's not about the Mac. It's called "Before Macintosh: >> The Apple Lisa documentary" >> >> It just happens to be (finally) getting released on the Mac's 40th >> anniversary. >>
[cctalk] Re: The Mac at 40
and we can all stop copy and pastin from wikipedia to act like we know what we're talking about. On Wed, 24 Jan 2024, Tony Jones via cctalk wrote: You keep saying this. Why? It's rather childish. Most of my knowledge comes from personal interest (I wrote a Smalltalk VM in the late 80's), from reading books like Dealers Of Lightning and from various interviews I've watched over the years. Besides, most of us had solidified our wrong perspectives and incorrect beliefs and assumptiond long before Wikipedia came along. -- Grumpy Ol' Fred ci...@xenosoft.com
[cctalk] Re: The Mac at 40
On Wed, Jan 24, 2024 at 6:27 PM Bill Degnan via cctalk < cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote: and we can all stop copy and pastin from wikipedia to act like we know what > we're talking about. > You keep saying this. Why? It's rather childish. Most of my knowledge comes from personal interest (I wrote a Smalltalk VM in the late 80's), from reading books like Dealers Of Lightning and from various interviews I've watched over the years.
[cctalk] Re: The Mac at 40
and, of course, with anything that people caan get too close to, you will get "blind men and the elephant" discrepancies between any two accounts of the event. -- Grumpy Ol' Fred ci...@xenosoft.com
[cctalk] Re: The Mac at 40
David Greelish's upcoming documentary has interviews of the people involved with the original project, and the subject of Xerox and all that is pretty well covered. I got a preview of the documentary, wait for it to come out.my Lisa is at 1hr13 mins in...This is an important documentary because it is thoroughly researched and we can all stop copy and pasting from wikipedia to act like we know what we're talking about. b On Wed, Jan 24, 2024 at 9:04 PM Tony Jones via cctalk wrote: > On Wed, Jan 24, 2024 at 5:29 PM Chris Hanson via cctalk < > cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote: > > > Apple didn't "steal" anything because > > . > > > I can't believe people still don't have a solid grasp of these things after > > 40 years of both journalism and academia covering them in rather > exhaustive > > detail. > > > > People likely don't have the solid grasp you feel they should because it's > probably not that important to them. Hence some of the myth's live on. > > No-one mentioned "steal"ing in this thread AFAICT until now so I assume > you're talking in the general population sense rather than members of this > list. Also it's pretty subjective what "steal" means. Hertzfeld when > asked took a very literal view "literally no code was taken, I mean not a > single line of code". By that definition I doubt Microsoft took a line of > code from Apple either but it didn't stop Apple suing them for copyright > infringement :-) > > I think Atkinson is on record as saying the Goldberg demo was just a > confirmation (for him) that a more graphical approach was the way forward. > I believe until then the Lisa project had been text based. I would not be > the slightest bit surprised to find out that Atkinson had already seen > demo's of Smalltalk 76 or 78. I get the impression PARC people smuggled > outsiders in late at night to see what they were working on.. It really > was all about getting Jobs on the same page. >
[cctalk] Re: The Mac at 40
On Wed, Jan 24, 2024 at 5:29 PM Chris Hanson via cctalk < cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote: > Apple didn't "steal" anything because > . > I can't believe people still don't have a solid grasp of these things after > 40 years of both journalism and academia covering them in rather exhaustive > detail. > People likely don't have the solid grasp you feel they should because it's probably not that important to them. Hence some of the myth's live on. No-one mentioned "steal"ing in this thread AFAICT until now so I assume you're talking in the general population sense rather than members of this list. Also it's pretty subjective what "steal" means. Hertzfeld when asked took a very literal view "literally no code was taken, I mean not a single line of code". By that definition I doubt Microsoft took a line of code from Apple either but it didn't stop Apple suing them for copyright infringement :-) I think Atkinson is on record as saying the Goldberg demo was just a confirmation (for him) that a more graphical approach was the way forward. I believe until then the Lisa project had been text based. I would not be the slightest bit surprised to find out that Atkinson had already seen demo's of Smalltalk 76 or 78. I get the impression PARC people smuggled outsiders in late at night to see what they were working on.. It really was all about getting Jobs on the same page.
[cctalk] Re: The Mac at 40
Apple didn't "steal" anything because Xerox received a tranche of pre-IPO Apple shares in exchange for allowing SJ and his folks to visit PARC for a bunch of demos and do whatever they wanted with what they saw. Nowadays you can also try out systems like Smalltalk-78, Xerox ViewPoint, etc. as well as the original Lisa and Macintosh systems in emulation -- and read papers like "Inventing the Lisa Human Interface," published in ACM Interactions 27 years ago -- to see just how different what SJ and his people saw at Xerox was from what Apple shipped in the Lisa and Macintosh 4-5 years after the visit. - The top-of-screen menu bar was an Apple invention. - Atkinson's "region" data structure to allow windows to update when partially obscured was an Apple invention. - Open/Save file dialogs were an Apple invention for Macintosh, because with 128KB of RAM it couldn't run both Finder and an application and thus couldn't use Lisa's "stationery pad" concept. I can't believe people still don't have a solid grasp of these things after 40 years of both journalism and academia covering them in rather exhaustive detail. -- Chris
[cctalk] Re: The MAC at 40
Well, if you compare a complete Mac, with a complete PC, including comparable hardware and software, they actually came out close to even! BUT, if you compare a complete Mac with an absolutley bare 5150PC, and shop for reasonable prices on RAM, drives, monitor, etc., with shareware software and/or packages for which you might be eligible under sifte licenses, then the PC comes out substantially cheaper. I wanted word processor, spreadsheet, Assembler, anda few compilers; those cost an amazing amount less from third party vendors for what I wanted compared to the "package" that IBM wanted to bundle. And, if you consider a generic XT clone, such as VIPC, etc., then the PC is WAY cheaper. I heard (another unsubstantiated story), that the engineers were tasked to make the Mac a $500 computer; but when done, Apple chose to charge more than that. -- Grumpy Ol' Fred ci...@xenosoft.com On Wed, 24 Jan 2024, Murray McCullough via cctalk wrote: I know a great deal of writings by techno-historians, computer-industry experts and technology enthusiasts concerning the Apple Mac, and now 40 years old, have covered this topic both on and off the net. Unlike originally stated I now feel that the MAC was an important change agent in regards to the all-in-one computer landscape. Why Apple priced it ‘prohibitively’ high, particularly so here in Canada, I’m not sure. Arguments such as an integrated ecosystem to securing a marketing and brand loyalty come to mind. Certainly applies to the world of Apple doesn't it! What I remember most from that time though was their 1984 Super Bowl commercial! It went a long way to putting Apple and the microcomputer industry on the mass-consumer market. Murray
[cctalk] Re: The MAC at 40
I know a great deal of writings by techno-historians, computer-industry experts and technology enthusiasts concerning the Apple Mac, and now 40 years old, have covered this topic both on and off the net. Unlike originally stated I now feel that the MAC was an important change agent in regards to the all-in-one computer landscape. Why Apple priced it ‘prohibitively’ high, particularly so here in Canada, I’m not sure. Arguments such as an integrated ecosystem to securing a marketing and brand loyalty come to mind. Certainly applies to the world of Apple doesn't it! What I remember most from that time though was their 1984 Super Bowl commercial! It went a long way to putting Apple and the microcomputer industry on the mass-consumer market. Murray On Wed, Jan 24, 2024 at 7:12 PM Bill Degnan via cctalk < cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote: > LoL oops. Strike my comment! > > On Wed, Jan 24, 2024, 7:09 PM Tony Jones via cctalk > > wrote: > > > On Wed, Jan 24, 2024 at 3:58 PM Bill Degnan via cctalk < > > cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote: > > > > > You all should check out David Greelish's new documentary on the Mac. > > > > > > > Sounds good except it's not about the Mac. It's called "Before > Macintosh: > > The Apple Lisa documentary" > > > > It just happens to be (finally) getting released on the Mac's 40th > > anniversary. > > >
[cctalk] Re: The MAC at 40
LoL oops. Strike my comment! On Wed, Jan 24, 2024, 7:09 PM Tony Jones via cctalk wrote: > On Wed, Jan 24, 2024 at 3:58 PM Bill Degnan via cctalk < > cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote: > > > You all should check out David Greelish's new documentary on the Mac. > > > > Sounds good except it's not about the Mac. It's called "Before Macintosh: > The Apple Lisa documentary" > > It just happens to be (finally) getting released on the Mac's 40th > anniversary. >
[cctalk] Re: The MAC at 40
On Wed, Jan 24, 2024 at 3:58 PM Bill Degnan via cctalk < cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote: > You all should check out David Greelish's new documentary on the Mac. > Sounds good except it's not about the Mac. It's called "Before Macintosh: The Apple Lisa documentary" It just happens to be (finally) getting released on the Mac's 40th anniversary.
[cctalk] Re: The MAC at 40
You all should check out David Greelish's new documentary on the Mac. It just came out today or it just about to be released. We should all support our fellow vintage computer historians, I know he put a lot of time into it. David has been writing about the Mac's significance before Wikipedia even existed Bill On Wed, Jan 24, 2024, 5:43 PM Jonathan Stone via cctalk < cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote: > > > On Wednesday, January 24, 2024 at 02:16:44 PM PST, Sellam Abraham via > cctalk wrote: > > [...] > > > But basically, Jobs never stole anything. He was pretty much invited to > > take a look, and then entered into some sort of exclusivity deal (I may > be > > wrong about this detail) to use Xerox tech. Xerox upper execs didn't > see a > > market in this kind of hardware; copiers were their game, so they didn't > > get what they had, and didn't care. If anything, Apple should be thanked > > for taking what would have been deadend technology at Xerox and making a > > product with it. Basically. > > Not exactly. Xerox *did* have products based on the D-machines (DandeLion, > DandeTiger, etc). > They were a commercial failure. Allegedly (from a Lisp-machine user at the > time) at least in part because the Xerox sales force only knew how to sell > devices that had a toner hooper. > > Wikipedia on the Daybreak (last D*-machine) says they were used > extensively withi Xerox until replaced by PCs r Sun workstations. > > > >
[cctalk] Re: The MAC at 40
On Wednesday, January 24, 2024 at 02:16:44 PM PST, Sellam Abraham via cctalk wrote: [...] > But basically, Jobs never stole anything. He was pretty much invited to > take a look, and then entered into some sort of exclusivity deal (I may be > wrong about this detail) to use Xerox tech. Xerox upper execs didn't see a > market in this kind of hardware; copiers were their game, so they didn't > get what they had, and didn't care. If anything, Apple should be thanked > for taking what would have been deadend technology at Xerox and making a > product with it. Basically. Not exactly. Xerox *did* have products based on the D-machines (DandeLion, DandeTiger, etc). They were a commercial failure. Allegedly (from a Lisp-machine user at the time) at least in part because the Xerox sales force only knew how to sell devices that had a toner hooper. Wikipedia on the Daybreak (last D*-machine) says they were used extensively withi Xerox until replaced by PCs r Sun workstations.
[cctalk] Re: The MAC at 40
On Wed, Jan 24, 2024 at 2:16 PM Sellam Abraham via cctalk < cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote: > > But basically, Jobs never stole anything. He was pretty much invited to > take a look, and then entered into some sort of exclusivity deal (I may be > wrong about this detail) to use Xerox tech. Xerox upper execs didn't see a > market in this kind of hardware; copiers were their game, so they didn't > get what they had, and didn't care. If anything, Apple should be thanked > for taking what would have been deadend technology at Xerox and making a > product with it. Basically. > This isn't the story told by Adele Goldberg. Jobs was invited for sure.I believe the finance side of Xerox wanted to invest in Apple. It's not clear what Jobs was shown initially but he knew it wasn't everything (because, drumroll, others had seen more). He pushed and was shown more. Was Jobs considered special by Goldberg? Possibly. This was the era where people were starting to leave Parc, disillusioned. "Spreading the PARC RNA" is, I believe, how Simonyi? described it. It is possible Goldberg was already thinking about Parcplace and saw the risk of showing too much to Jobs?
[cctalk] Re: The MAC at 40
On Wed, Jan 24, 2024 at 2:04 PM Andrew Diller wrote: > I think now anyone that wants to look a bit more closely > Hardly a unique situation. Often the story that persists in the mainstream isn't the most accurate.
[cctalk] Re: The MAC at 40
On Wed, Jan 24, 2024 at 2:04 PM Andrew Diller via cctalk < cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote: > I think now anyone that wants to look a bit more closely has a much better > idea and context about what caused the Birth of the Mac. That story of > "stolen from PARC" IMHO is just weak writing back when the Internet didn't > have the info it has today which gives full context over what was going on. > And many people have told a much more rich and (I hope) accurate telling of > the story. > > The Mac sure made an impact on me and I've never looked back or wanted to > use any other computing system (for my real computer) since then. > > -andy > I read a narrative more recently that more accurately depicted the actual events. I wish I could remember any details about it, otherwise I would link it up so others could read it. But basically, Jobs never stole anything. He was pretty much invited to take a look, and then entered into some sort of exclusivity deal (I may be wrong about this detail) to use Xerox tech. Xerox upper execs didn't see a market in this kind of hardware; copiers were their game, so they didn't get what they had, and didn't care. If anything, Apple should be thanked for taking what would have been deadend technology at Xerox and making a product with it. Basically. Sellam
[cctalk] Re: The MAC at 40
I think now anyone that wants to look a bit more closely has a much better idea and context about what caused the Birth of the Mac. That story of "stolen from PARC" IMHO is just weak writing back when the Internet didn't have the info it has today which gives full context over what was going on. And many people have told a much more rich and (I hope) accurate telling of the story. The Mac sure made an impact on me and I've never looked back or wanted to use any other computing system (for my real computer) since then. -andy > On Jan 24, 2024, at 4:21 PM, Tony Jones via cctalk > wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 24, 2024 at 12:53 PM Murray McCullough via cctalk < > cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote: > >> The Apple Mac, 40 years old, came from Xerox PARC’s GUI and Apple’s LISA. >> Not sure that it really changed computing though! Financially it didn't >> help Apple until after 1997 and Gate's investment. >> > > I struggle with the whole "birth of the Mac" story. > > It starts with the "Jobs visit to Parc" story which is often told as if he > single handedly made off with Xerox's crown jewels, ignoring the fact that > lots of people had been given prior demos of the Smalltalk 76 and 78 > systems. Certainly he had the vision to appreciate what he saw and the > ability to capitalize on it, but it was hardly the "making off with a > secret" it's claimed to be. > > Then there is the whole "Lisa was a failure story. > > The Mac (developed at significant cost largely because Jobs felt slighted) > launched for I believe $2,495 with a 9" screen, 128k RAM, minimal software > and a single tasking OS). > At the same time the Lisa 2/5 was released at $3495 with a 12" screen, 512k > RAM and a true preemptive multitasking OS. > > The 128K of the Mac was so limiting that a few months later they had to > shortly after launch the Fat Mac (512K) at $2,795 > > In the mid 90s Mac's were still crippled by the original Mac OS design. > Badly behaving apps crashing the entire system was common. Multiple > projects to design a replacement had failed. > > Sure he turned it all around with the Next acquisition and the $2.9 > trillion rest is history but I sometimes wonder what would have happened if > they'd somehow been able to stop Jobs and instead focus on the Lisa.
[cctalk] Re: The MAC at 40
> On 25 Jan 2024, at 08:21, Tony Jones via cctalk wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 24, 2024 at 12:53 PM Murray McCullough via cctalk < > cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote: > >> The Apple Mac, 40 years old, came from Xerox PARC’s GUI and Apple’s LISA. >> Not sure that it really changed computing though! Financially it didn't >> help Apple until after 1997 and Gate's investment. >> > > I struggle with the whole "birth of the Mac" story. > > It starts with the "Jobs visit to Parc" story which is often told as if he > single handedly made off with Xerox's crown jewels, ignoring the fact that > lots of people had been given prior demos of the Smalltalk 76 and 78 > systems. Certainly he had the vision to appreciate what he saw and the > ability to capitalize on it, but it was hardly the "making off with a > secret" it's claimed to be. Agreed. > Then there is the whole "Lisa was a failure story. Lisa had several issues that hampered its success, in my view: The price was too high, relatively. The twiggy drives were unreliable, and it really needed a hard drive, which was additional cost on top of the already high base cost. The screen pixels were rectangular. It mightn’t seem like a big deal, but if you’re a software developer choosing between Lisa and Mac, it’s a factor. > The Mac (developed at significant cost largely because Jobs felt slighted) > launched for I believe $2,495 with a 9" screen, 128k RAM, minimal software > and a single tasking OS). > At the same time the Lisa 2/5 was released at $3495 with a 12" screen, 512k > RAM and a true preemptive multitasking OS. I think the advantages of the Lisa OS were largely invisible to purchasers at the time. It wasn’t something we’d been trained (by Apple DOS, or CP/M, or MS-DOS) to consider. Perhaps for those with experience using a “proper” OS it might have been a factor? I don’t recall it being really highlighted by Apple, either. I imagine the hand of Jobs in that, making sure marketing didn’t hurt the Mac. > The 128K of the Mac was so limiting that a few months later they had to > shortly after launch the Fat Mac (512K) at $2,795 > > In the mid 90s Mac's were still crippled by the original Mac OS design. > Badly behaving apps crashing the entire system was common. Multiple > projects to design a replacement had failed. Ultimately the “Blue Box” environment for OSX kinda solved this problem, emulating aMacOS Classic environment inside Unix processes. But Jobs wasn’t a software engineer, and this was an engineering issue. > Sure he turned it all around with the Next acquisition and the $2.9 > trillion rest is history but I sometimes wonder what would have happened if > they'd somehow been able to stop Jobs and instead focus on the Lisa. Without the Lisa, the Mac would have been perceived as “too expensive”. As it was, if you wanted the GUI-style system, a Mac was the cheap(er) option. I think the Mac would have tanked without this in the first year or so. d
[cctalk] Re: The MAC at 40
On Wed, 24 Jan 2024, Murray McCullough via cctalk wrote:
The Apple Mac, 40 years old, came from Xerox PARC’s GUI and Apple’s LISA.
Not sure that it really changed computing though! Financially it didn't
help Apple until after 1997 and Gate's investment.
Although they still needed help, the Mac kept the Apple3 and Lisa from
destroying the Apple company.
Bill Gates' bailout failed to make him a friend to the Apple fan-boys, who
hated him even more than the rest of us did. I never hated Bill Gates;
when he was still a MILLIONaire, he was kinda cool. We should all,
therefore do what we can to make him into a millionaire.
The Mac changed a few things. Although not necessarily exclusively, was
it the first computer Super Bowl ad?
The first computer ad to be ridiculed outside of computing circles;
Osborne's "the man on the left doesn't stand a chance" was ridiculed in
computer circles ("whose left? ours or theirs?, the guy with the Osborne
arrives without the file folders, uninformed of the news, and starving
because of no sandwich" (although the open space in the front of the
Osborne could hold a small sandwich).
Otrona's Charlie Chaplin look-alike struggling down stairs with a PC on a
card table was unknown outside of computing circles, at least until IBM
claimed trademark of Charlie chaplin's "little tramp" character.
But ridicule, such as Futurama's "Hey! We were watching that!" reached
all aspects of society.
The Mac, although still rather expensive, brought the Lisa's technology
within reach of others than executives showing off to other executives.
The Mac brought the mouse out of being obscure and esoteric, and brought
aspects of the content of The Mother Of All Demos into popularity to the
public.
It made many people, including some of us, realize that your computer
could cost half as much if you were willing to wield a screwdriver, and
install parts.
The Mac provided one of the very few alternatives to PC.
In august 1981. many of us said, "In a few years, all computers will be
IBM PC, or imitations thereof.", the Mac helped give the PC an image of
not being a monopoly. And it became "PC plus imitations thereof, and a
minority of Mac and all others." [Sorry, but few other than us
appreciated CP/M, or even Unix]
Android has brought a third player into the fray.
--
Grumpy Ol' Fred ci...@xenosoft.com
[cctalk] Re: The MAC at 40
On Wed, Jan 24, 2024 at 12:53 PM Murray McCullough via cctalk < cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote: > The Apple Mac, 40 years old, came from Xerox PARC’s GUI and Apple’s LISA. > Not sure that it really changed computing though! Financially it didn't > help Apple until after 1997 and Gate's investment. > I struggle with the whole "birth of the Mac" story. It starts with the "Jobs visit to Parc" story which is often told as if he single handedly made off with Xerox's crown jewels, ignoring the fact that lots of people had been given prior demos of the Smalltalk 76 and 78 systems. Certainly he had the vision to appreciate what he saw and the ability to capitalize on it, but it was hardly the "making off with a secret" it's claimed to be. Then there is the whole "Lisa was a failure story. The Mac (developed at significant cost largely because Jobs felt slighted) launched for I believe $2,495 with a 9" screen, 128k RAM, minimal software and a single tasking OS). At the same time the Lisa 2/5 was released at $3495 with a 12" screen, 512k RAM and a true preemptive multitasking OS. The 128K of the Mac was so limiting that a few months later they had to shortly after launch the Fat Mac (512K) at $2,795 In the mid 90s Mac's were still crippled by the original Mac OS design. Badly behaving apps crashing the entire system was common. Multiple projects to design a replacement had failed. Sure he turned it all around with the Next acquisition and the $2.9 trillion rest is history but I sometimes wonder what would have happened if they'd somehow been able to stop Jobs and instead focus on the Lisa.
