[net.micro.amiga] DRI agrees to change GEM

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