peter@graffiti.UUCP (Peter da Silva) (10/09/85)
Background for net.micro.amiga-only types... DRI has been sued by apple for using the Mac desktop. They will be going after the AMIGA next, you can count on it. The GEM desktop has been changed: two windows only, no resizable windows, no trashcan, no horizontal scrollbars. Strange, since none of these things are original with the Mac, but I guess any lobotomisation would do. > In article <3226@nsc.UUCP> chuqui@nsc.UUCP (Chuq Von Rospach) writes: > >Anyone who's seen a Xerox (anyone with a dandelion want to comment?) will > >be the first to admit similarities, but Apple went very strongly out in > >their own direction. The Mac isn't a copy of Xerox' work, it is just > >influenced by it. From what the releases say, that isn't as true of the Mac > >and GEM (I haven't seen GEM yet, so I won't comment on it). > > I haven't seen any of the recent Xerox workstations (I used the Alto a > little), but I figured this was the case. Xerox introduced (or at least > popularized) the mouse and icons, but the detailed approaches are quite > different. I believe that their interface was based primarily on > dragging icons to other icons, which only survives in the Finder as the > Trash and copying files -- in Xerox systems, one would print a file by > dragging it to the printer icon, and I think one would invoke a program > on a file by dragging the file to the program's icon (I think the > printer and trash can were just particular cases of this general > facility). I played around with a STAR at NCC-82 here in Houston, and I remember that, too. You also sent mail by dropping it in your out-box. The reciever's in-box then changed from an empty-box-icon to a full-box-icon. Very nice. I hope that when Apple gets around to suing AMIGA or C= (depending on who they're maddest at), said company will go back to the pop-up menus and drag-and-drop model instead of lobotimising the AMIGA like DRI lobotomised GEM.
peter@graffiti.UUCP (Peter da Silva) (10/09/85)
Apropos to this... could anyone post the addresses (physical) to send impassioned pleas for intelligence and imagination in the changes to GEM, Intuition, and so on? There was a suggestion that we test the power of USENET by creating Cheese Triscuits. How about saving it for something more useful: either getting Apple to back down on this new idiocy or getting AMIGA and DRI to implement the STAR desktop instead of the MAC desktop & give Apple the finger. The AMIGA is very close as it is.
gus@Shasta.ARPA (10/14/85)
> Apropos to this... could anyone post the addresses (physical) to send > impassioned pleas for intelligence and imagination in the changes to > GEM, Intuition, and so on? There was a suggestion that we test the power > of USENET by creating Cheese Triscuits. How about saving it for > something more useful: either getting Apple to back down on this new idiocy > or getting AMIGA and DRI to implement the STAR desktop instead of the > MAC desktop & give Apple the finger. The AMIGA is very close as it is. Why can't DRI make the GEM desktop? If you all want to send letters to DRI giving suggestions for the "new" GEM look, that's all well and good, but there is still plenty of room for creativity in window oriented interfaces without stepping on someone elses toes. I see Sun Windows, Microsoft Windows, Xerox Cedar, and Xerox Smalltalk as four different interpretations of the desktop metaphor which look nothing like the Mac. If there is anyone lackiing is creativity, it's DRI.
friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) (10/16/85)
In article <280@graffiti.UUCP> peter@graffiti.UUCP (Peter da Silva) writes: > >The GEM desktop has been changed: two windows only, no resizable windows, >no trashcan, no horizontal scrollbars. Strange, since none of these things >are original with the Mac, but I guess any lobotomisation would do. > Only TWO windows!! NO trashcan!?!? These change would make GEM almost useless! Remind me not to buy this product! And to think a month ago GEM was supposed to be the best windowing system around for MS-DOS. Ce la vie! -- Sarima (Stanley Friesen) UUCP: {ttidca|ihnp4|sdcrdcf|quad1|nrcvax|bellcore|logico}!psivax!friesen ARPA: ttidca!psivax!friesen@rand-unix.arpa
bc@cyb-eng.UUCP (Bill Crews) (10/17/85)
> > Apropos to this... could anyone post the addresses (physical) to send > > impassioned pleas for intelligence and imagination in the changes to > > GEM, Intuition, and so on? There was a suggestion that we test the power > > of USENET by creating Cheese Triscuits. How about saving it for > > something more useful: either getting Apple to back down on this new idiocy > > or getting AMIGA and DRI to implement the STAR desktop instead of the > > MAC desktop & give Apple the finger. The AMIGA is very close as it is. > > Why can't DRI make the GEM desktop? If you all want to send letters to DRI > giving suggestions for the "new" GEM look, that's all well and good, but > there is still plenty of room for creativity in window oriented interfaces > without stepping on someone elses toes. I see Sun Windows, Microsoft Windows, > Xerox Cedar, and Xerox Smalltalk as four different interpretations of the > desktop metaphor which look nothing like the Mac. If there is anyone lackiing > is creativity, it's DRI. Good point! However, I like the object-orientation of the STAR Desktop and wish that SOMEONE would make it available in a consumer-affordable form, since Xerox apparently refuses to do so. -- - bc - ..!{seismo,topaz,gatech,nbires,ihnp4}!ut-sally!cyb-eng!bc (512) 835-2266
usenet@ucbvax.ARPA (USENET News Administration) (10/18/85)
In article <795@psivax.UUCP> friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) writes: >In article <280@graffiti.UUCP> peter@graffiti.UUCP (Peter da Silva) writes: >> >>The GEM desktop has been changed: two windows only, no resizable windows, >>no trashcan, no horizontal scrollbars. Strange, since none of these things >>are original with the Mac, but I guess any lobotomisation would do. >> > Only TWO windows!! NO trashcan!?!? These change would make GEM >almost useless! Remind me not to buy this product! And to think a >month ago GEM was supposed to be the best windowing system around for >MS-DOS. Ce la vie! >-- > Seems to me that MS-DOS will have to rely on hacks of AT&T's windowing UNIX for their 6300, out Very Soon Now (the hack's so it will run on other than the 6300). Somehow I doubt that Apple will sue AT&T over that one... Peter Korn korn%ucbcory@Berkeley.ARPA
xxajtxx@hou2d.UUCP (A.THANGARAJ) (10/23/85)
<<<<<<<%%%%%%%######|||||$$$$!!!&&(line^eater)&&!!!$$$$|||||######%%%%%%%>>>>>>> The visionary light has gone out of Apple. The company has become yet another short-sighted next-quarter-oriented concern. Does Apple really believe that by forcing DRI to cripple GEMDRAW they are going to sell more MACS? People who buy IBM PCs or compatibles will continue to do so for whatever reasons they buy them today - they are not going to rush out and buy MACS because DRI crippled GEM. A more visionary Apple might have forseen that GEM, by introducing IBM PC and compatible users to a MAC-like interface, was helping to propagate a standard user interface in the PC industry; in an industry full of incompatibilities, standards are sorely needed, and GEM is/was helping to bring together the MAC world and the IBM compatible world, at least at the user interface level. If only all drawing, painting and desktop programs would confirm to a standard screen display (scroll bars, close boxes, windows of variable size, multiple overlaid windows, etc.) the personal computer industry as a whole would benefit: when users are confronted by a bewildering array of choices, they are turned off and tend to postpone purchase; when faced with an industry standard, they feel more comfortable in going ahead and taking the plunge. This would, in the long run, benefit Apple itself! Instead, Apple has earned the resentment of personal computer users by its heavy-handed actions. Its efforts at denying user-friendly interfaces for the masses will backfire: Whereas the "MAC-like User Interface" may have soon become the industry standard, displacing anything put out by IBM or Microsoft, Apple has now forfeited that position. Maybe its not too late. Apple, could you please offer to license your user-interface to all-comers for a nominal sum? You will benefit in the long run. ....arun. _______ _______ Suite HR1K228 / * \ _ / * \ all views are | * | / \ | * | 480 Red Hill Rd |* * H * *| <(GSP)> |* * R * *| MY OWN only, | * | \_/ | * | Middletown NJ 07748 | * |Garden State | * | not my employer's. +-------------+ Parkway +-------------+ hou2d!xxajtxx | R E D |Exit 114 | H I L L | ...the future +-------------------------------------------+ 201-949-9127 |R E Q U I E M B Y T H E P A R K W A Y| lies in PC's +-------------------------------------------+
awd@ut-ngp.UTEXAS (Andrew W. Donoho) (10/24/85)
Many of the folks who are criticizing Apple for givin DRI trouble may not be aware of what some Apple employees have told me is one reason for this action. GEM just isn't a good system. The fact that it resembles the Macintosh/Lisa cosmetically could easily turn a lot of people off to that whole style of working just because of the inadequacy of the DRI design/implementation. I don't think that this has any bearing on the legal issues, but from the standpoint of Apple's motivation, I find it easy to believe that they would not want what I (and apparently, they) consider a second-rate "desktop-style" system to be the standard on many machines. No one is going to switch to a Macintosh if they are led to believe that GEM is typical of a state of the art desktop system. Darin Adler
davidl@teklds.UUCP (David Levine) (10/24/85)
In article <799@hou2d.UUCP> xxajtxx@hou2d.UUCP (A.THANGARAJ) writes: > A more visionary Apple might have forseen that GEM, by introducing >IBM PC and compatible users to a MAC-like interface, was helping to propagate >a standard user interface in the PC industry... > ... If only all drawing, painting and desktop programs would >confirm to a standard screen display, ... the personal computer industry >as a whole would benefit... >This would, in the long run, benefit Apple itself! > ... Whereas the "MAC-like User Interface" may have >soon become the industry standard, displacing anything put out by IBM or >Microsoft, Apple has now forfeited that position. I just have to put my two bits in on this one. Apple has nothing to gain and everything to lose by letting the "Mac-LIKE user interface" (emphasis mine) become a standard. The hordes of business computer users who think that IBM is the only name in computers have no reason to buy Apple products unless they are in some way clearly superior to IBM. This superiority can be in price, features, performance or what have you, as long as it's enough of a DIFFERENCE to make up for lack of IBM compatibility. If the "Mac-like user interface" is available on the IBM PC, short-sighted grey suits will see no reason at all to buy a Mac. Thus, Apple (as a profit-making business) has no choice but to protect its differences. This article reminds me of those who said in 1980 that IBM's entry into the personal computer field would "legitimize" the industry. (Remember when "PC" meant "a personal computer", not "an IBM-compatible 16-bit MS-DOS computer"? Remember Osborne and Victor? Remember when micros were an adventure?) I've directed followups to net.micro.pc only. This branch of the discussion is taking off in an IBM-compatible direction. By the way, what DOES that .signature with the two tombstones mean? David D. Levine (...decvax!tektronix!teklds!davidl) [UUCP] (teklds!davidl.tektronix@csnet-relay) [ARPA/CSNET] P.S. Forgive me for spouting off, but it looks like I'm going to be forced to use a PC at work (can you imagine the pain of using MS-DOS every day when you're used to the power of UNIX?) and the very thought of IBM just makes me sick.
sman@pilchuck.UUCP (Michael Spillman) (10/25/85)
> A more visionary Apple might have forseen that GEM, by introducing > IBM PC and compatible users to a MAC-like interface, was helping to propagate > a standard user interface in the PC industry; in an industry full of > incompatibilities, standards are sorely needed, and GEM is/was helping to > bring together the MAC world and the IBM compatible world, at least at the > user interface level. If only all drawing, painting and desktop programs would > for the masses will backfire: Whereas the "MAC-like User Interface" may have > soon become the industry standard, displacing anything put out by IBM or > Microsoft, Apple has now forfeited that position. > Maybe its not too late. Apple, could you please offer to license your > user-interface to all-comers for a nominal sum? You will benefit in the > long run. 1) You don't make money by giving away your product. 2) IBM would have NEVER advertised their product as "Mac-compatible" That would have made them appear to acknowledge a peer, which, in their eyes, they have none. ***** UNIX: So much entropy, so little work. A VMS hacker and UNIX abuser. M. D. Spillman a.k.a. ...uw-beaver!entropy!dataio!pilchuck!sman
peter@graffiti.UUCP (Peter da Silva) (10/25/85)
> bearing on the legal issues, but from the standpoint of Apple's > motivation, I find it easy to believe that they would not want what I > (and apparently, they) consider a second-rate "desktop-style" system > to be the standard on many machines. No one is going to switch to a > Macintosh if they are led to believe that GEM is typical of a state of > the art desktop system. I'd believe this if they didn't say they were going after the AMIGA next (which they have been quoted as saying in InfoWorld). The AMIGA is in no way a bad implementation of the desktop metaphor. Of course no-one is going to switch to a Mac once they get their hands on an AMIGA either. I just wish the AMIGA icons didn't look so hokey. Time to pull out the old binary editor. -- Name: Peter da Silva Graphic: `-_-' UUCP: ...!shell!{graffiti,baylor}!peter IAEF: ...!kitty!baylor!peter
tomm@asgb.UUCP (Tom Mackey) (10/28/85)
Wait a minute: "GEM is not a good product"? People using GEM won't buy a Mac? What drivel! I've just spent a month evaluating GEM, and the GEM toolkit, and beg to differ. GEM offers a desk-top metaphor user interface management system to the PClone world. Last year, when I finally decided to buy a personal computer for myself and my family, I bought a PCjr, not because I could run GEM, but because it would run most of the software I had purchased during my years in manufacturing engineering and as a college student. The fact that GEM was available never entered into it. The typical GEM user picked it up AFTER they already owned or had access to a PC or clone thereof. While I do not like the layout of the toolkit, (I prefer an object oriented approach), it is in many ways similar to that of the Macintosh. The appearence of the desktop is the largest similarity to the Mac, and is the only thing in question. If Apple employees are saying that GEM is inferior, then they should look at their own problems as well. The underlaying toolkit, as mentioned before, is similar. When I say I prefer an object oriented approach, I mean that I would prefer that the underlying tools would be object classes. But the Mac and GEM toolkits both provide a procedural interface, which in turn forces the resulting interface to be more internal than external. GEM is a good product. As an experianced computer user, I am happy with a command line interface. I have been evaluting TopView (c IBM) as well, and MUCH prefer GEM. I use GEM when- ever I have a lot of file copying or moving to do. I usually fire up GEM, then escape to the MS-DOS command. I may then use the command line interface as I wish, yet can use the GEM goodies by simply typing "exit". I agree with a previous poster that Apple would be better off allowing desk-top metaphor products on non-Mac hardware. Such a strategy would lead to wide acceptance of such user interface management systems. I have little doubt that Apple is in a better place than any one else to further the state of the art in such UIMS's, and if they would spend more time being the inovative company I have always thought of them as, and less time bitching about imitators, they could become the industry leaders they think of themselves as. I have no interest in whether Apple products are superior to IBM products or DRI products. I choose what I buy based on the greatest functionality for my money. I would hope that most other people do the same. Instead of trying to provide functionality, over the last two years or so, Apple has instead chosen to provide hype. I sincerely hope they get back on course! Tom Mackey ihnp4!sabre!\ hplabs!sdcrdcf!-bmcg!asgb!tomm { ihnp4, ucbvax, allegra }!sdcsvax!/ Burroughs Distributed Systems Group Boulder, Colorado
dgary@ecsvax.UUCP (D Gary Grady) (10/30/85)
> . . . While I do > not like the layout of the [GEM] toolkit, . . . it is in many ways > similar to that of the Macintosh. The appearence of the desktop is the > largest similarity to the Mac, and is the only thing in question. > > . . . I agree with > a previous poster that Apple would be better off allowing desk-top > metaphor products on non-Mac hardware. Such a strategy would lead to > wide acceptance of such user interface management systems. > -- Tom Mackey Of course, it was the Xerox Star, and not the Lisa or Mac, that first introduced this sort of interface to the commercial market. (The most noticeable difference between the Star and the Mac is the "wait" cursor being an hour glass on the Star and a wristwatch on the Mac.) As for this point-and-click becoming widely accepted, it is already in use on a large number of workstation-class machines, and a presentation on future directions offered by IBM in Rockville this past summer all but promised that IBM would move in this direction as well. -- D Gary Grady Duke U Comp Center, Durham, NC 27706 (919) 684-3695 USENET: {seismo,decvax,ihnp4,akgua,etc.}!mcnc!ecsvax!dgary