It's not some ironic competitor. It was a later machine, built on the back of lessons learned from the Lisa's failure.
A lot of desirable stuff was lost: multitasking, app development in a high-level language (and a type-safe one at that!), expansion slots etc.
And less desirable stuff: the template-oriented template and creator paradigm. Radical, innovative, but confusing. The Mac went with a much simpler, more conventional, documents-and-apps model, in the traditional CP/M and DOS style.
I think the templates were a brilliant idea. They made somewhat of a comeback on the Mac and didn’t get huge traction, but still have remnants in current MacOS with its stationary pads (a poor implementation, and the Finder doesn’t even change the icon of a file when it is turned into a stationary pad)
Comments
Ironically > Macintosh competed with Lisa and ultimately became the favored computer for its lower price and open software ecosystem
It's not ironic at all.
The Mac originated as a cut-down Lisa.
It's not some ironic competitor. It was a later machine, built on the back of lessons learned from the Lisa's failure.
A lot of desirable stuff was lost: multitasking, app development in a high-level language (and a type-safe one at that!), expansion slots etc.
And less desirable stuff: the template-oriented template and creator paradigm. Radical, innovative, but confusing. The Mac went with a much simpler, more conventional, documents-and-apps model, in the traditional CP/M and DOS style.
I think the templates were a brilliant idea. They made somewhat of a comeback on the Mac and didn’t get huge traction, but still have remnants in current MacOS with its stationary pads (a poor implementation, and the Finder doesn’t even change the icon of a file when it is turned into a stationary pad)
* stationery
But you're right. :-)