🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <13300@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU> captkidd@athena.mit.edu (Ivan Cavero Belaunde) writes:
>. . . Witness
>the popularity of large screen displays (both FPDs and Portrait), even though
>you have to pay through the nose for them.  There is a niche for an SE or
>SE/30 witha 13" display, guys.  From the stories in MacUser about your labs,
>it looks like you've got lots of products in development - let them see the
>light!  Otherwise, you might turn into Xerox, which because of the blinders
>worn by management wasted *astounding* amounts of technology developed by
>them at PARC (A PC in 1973?  A Mac in 1979?  Sheesh).

Indeed.  Although a 13" inch monitor is still rather small.

We use Xerox 6085s; they are outstanding office systems, despite their
flaws.  One of the reasons I haven't sprung for a Mac to use at home is
that I am so spoiled by the 19" display on the Xerox 6085/ViewPoint machine
I use at work.  The Xerox/Apple desktop-style user agent really demands
a big monitor.  As the Mac software matures, the requirement is going to
become even more urgent; once you have true multitasking, you really need
to keep multiple windows open, and visible, at the same time.  And the
Mac II is out of my price range for a home computer.

I am constantly twitting the Xerox folks about how much they have to
learn (sic) from Apple.  But the opposite is also astonishingly true.
Apple has popularized a lot of fine ideas that originated at places like
SRI and Xerox PARC, and has made itself a serious player in the market as
a consequence.  (After all, how many people even know Xerox sells
comuters?)  But what may have been reasonable limitations or design
constraints when the Mac was introduced do not necessarily make sense
today.
-- 
Chris Kern			     Voice of America, Washington, D.C.
...uunet!voa3!ck					+1 202-485-7020