🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <296@ucsbcsl.UUCP> iltis@ucsbcsl.UUCP (Ronald A. Iltis) writes:
> As to the desirability of a closed architecture, the choice was a big
> mistake on Apple's part in selling to the scientific/engineering 
> community.  ...  I should note that Reed College has made a truly
> noble effort with RASCAL in trying to make the Macintosh a useful machine
> for data acquisition and instrumentation control, ...

But think about who they were aiming the machine at: "the rest of us"
(not me though).  They weren't aiming for the scientific/engineering
community, and the machine wasn't intended for data acquisition or
instrumentation control (why are people trying this?).  Whether this
was a wise decision on their part is another matter entirely (see the
fictional net.marketing.strategy or net.business).

> As a final note, due to the lack of hard disk capability in the Macintosh
> Finder (hopefully corrected with 4.1) and in the hardware, it is obvious
> that Apple did not intend for people to develop software on the machine.

Exactly.

I agree with you about the technical information about the machine (i.e.
the lack of it, and Apple's attitude), but again, that is their "strategy".

John