🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <4791@helios.ee.lbl.gov>, antony@lbl-csam.arpa (Antony A. Courtney)
writes:
 
> More relevant to the discussion of the NeXT is probably the comparison of the
> Lisa to the Mac.  The Lisa was slow, overpriced, and uncompetetive.  That
> wasn't of much importance.  The machine was important because it was a machine
> which people at apple could do R&D for.  The Macintosh embodied the design
> concepts of the Lisa, but it was very clear that the fundamental mistakes the
> engineers made were not repeated in the Mac.  If you look at the NeXT as a
> Lisa of sorts, then it is a very good machine.
 
   This is straying a bit from comp.arch, but I've wanted to ask
this ever since the MacII came out. The Lisa used a 68000 running
at something like 8Mhz. Now that 68030-based MacII's are in
production at ??Mhz, has anyone at Apple dusted off the old Lisa
OS to see what it could do with a bit more horsepower behind it?
I once saw a comment from someone who had bought a Lisa as part
of an early Mac development system: "very slow, but *very*
powerful".