JKT100@psuvm.psu.edu (JKT) (04/09/90)
In article <1342@lpami.wimsey.bc.ca>, lphillips@lpami.wimsey.bc.ca (Larry Phillips) says: >It is my sincere wish that the Amiga never becomes another Mac, just >as it is the sincere wish of many or most Mac proponents that the Mac >never becomes another Amiga. Unfortunately, while I agree with this wholeheartedly, I must say I think it is coming about that both machines are growing uncomfortably similar as time goes on. Fact: The Mac IIfx has duplicated the Amiga's style of using support chips for I/O, and other tasks to relieve the CPU of such tedium Fact: WB 1.4 is going to have a drawer where you put programs that will be run upon startup. (sound like a Macintosh CDEV to you? Does to me.) These are just two examples among many. The Mac is copying Amiga in hardware, Amiga is copying Mac in software. People are munching up the Mac. Now, I don't know if the above is partially to do with it or not, but the fact remains that this, and many other campuses around the country have been sold on Macs, despite their lacking hardware capabilities and their higher prices. Will we one day have an entire machine which is a merging of Mac and Amiga? Well, an "Amigatosh" (sorry, but that name works, even if it is taken) would not necessarily be all that bad *IF* (very big if) it is done right. Take 1 look at history, though, and you'll see chances are it won't be. Kurt -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- || Kurt Tappe (814) 862-8630 || I use Amigas. I use Macs. || || 600 E. Pollock Rd., #5705 || I happen to like them both. :-) || || State College, PA 16801 --------------------------------------|| || jkt100@psuvm.bitnet or jkt100@psuvm.psu.edu || || or jkt100%psuvm.bitnet@psuvax1 QLink: KurtTappe || ----------------------------------------------------------------------
dave@cs.arizona.edu (David P. Schaumann) (04/09/90)
In article <90098.170806JKT100@psuvm.psu.edu>, JKT100@psuvm.psu.edu (JKT) writes: |In article <1342@lpami.wimsey.bc.ca>, lphillips@lpami.wimsey.bc.ca (Larry |Phillips) says: |>It is my sincere wish that the Amiga never becomes another Mac, just |>as it is the sincere wish of many or most Mac proponents that the Mac |>never becomes another Amiga. | >Unfortunately, while I agree with this wholeheartedly, I must say I think it Me too... |is coming about that both machines are growing uncomfortably similar as time |goes on. | |Fact: The Mac IIfx has duplicated the Amiga's style of using support chips | for I/O, and other tasks to relieve the CPU of such tedium |Fact: WB 1.4 is going to have a drawer where you put programs that will be | run upon startup. (sound like a Macintosh CDEV to you? Does to me.) | |These are just two examples among many. The Mac is copying Amiga in hardware, |Amiga is copying Mac in software. | Is it a crime to borrow a good idea? IMHO, only if it is also propriety information... |Will we one day have an entire machine which is a merging of Mac and Amiga? |Well, an "Amigatosh" (sorry, but that name works, even if it is taken) would |not necessarily be all that bad *IF* (very big if) it is done right. Take |1 look at history, though, and you'll see chances are it won't be. | I doubt sincerely that there will be an "Amigatosh" as you say anytime in the concievable future. The design philosiphies of the two machines are light years apart... As I said above, I think this is just an example of good ideas being used by others. Refreshing, after so long of the Not Invented Here syndrome. | Kurt |-- |---------------------------------------------------------------------- ||| Kurt Tappe (814) 862-8630 || I use Amigas. I use Macs. || ||| 600 E. Pollock Rd., #5705 || I happen to like them both. :-) || ||| State College, PA 16801 --------------------------------------|| ||| jkt100@psuvm.bitnet or jkt100@psuvm.psu.edu || ||| or jkt100%psuvm.bitnet@psuvax1 QLink: KurtTappe || | ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Dave Schaumann dave@cs.arizona.edu
davidm@uunet.UU.NET (David S. Masterson) (04/10/90)
In article <216@caslon.cs.arizona.edu> dave@cs.arizona.edu (David P. Schaumann) writes: Is it a crime to borrow a good idea? IMHO, only if it is also propriety information... Can you say "look and feel"? As much as I hate it, I can... ;-) -- =================================================================== David Masterson Consilium, Inc. uunet!cimshop!davidm Mt. View, CA 94043 =================================================================== "If someone thinks they know what I said, then I didn't say it!"
chrisl@caen.engin.umich.edu (Chris Lang) (04/10/90)
In article <90098.170806JKT100@psuvm.psu.edu> JKT100@psuvm.psu.edu (JKT) writes: >Fact: The Mac IIfx has duplicated the Amiga's style of using support chips > for I/O, and other tasks to relieve the CPU of such tedium >Fact: WB 1.4 is going to have a drawer where you put programs that will be > run upon startup. (sound like a Macintosh CDEV to you? Does to me.) Since you present this as a fact, I presume you have seen 1.4. Further, I presume you signed a non-disclosure agreement. Therefore, you might want to refrain from discussing any more details of 1.4 in comp.sys.amiga until it's released. Just a suggestion... -Chris -- Chris Lang, University of Michigan, College of Engineering +1 313 763 1832 4622 Bursley, Ann Arbor, MI, 48109 chrisl@caen.engin.umich.edu WORK: National Center for Manufacturing Sciences, 900 Victors Way, Suite 226, Ann Arbor, MI, 48108 +1 313 995 0300 "I hate quotations. Tell me what you know." - Ralph Waldo Emerson
es1@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Ethan Solomita) (04/10/90)
In article <1990Apr9.220205.4144@caen.engin.umich.edu> chrisl@caen.engin.umich.edu (Chris Lang) writes: >In article <90098.170806JKT100@psuvm.psu.edu> JKT100@psuvm.psu.edu (JKT) writes: >>Fact: The Mac IIfx has duplicated the Amiga's style of using support chips >> for I/O, and other tasks to relieve the CPU of such tedium >>Fact: WB 1.4 is going to have a drawer where you put programs that will be >> run upon startup. (sound like a Macintosh CDEV to you? Does to me.) > >Since you present this as a fact, I presume you have seen 1.4. Further, I >presume you signed a non-disclosure agreement. Therefore, you might want to >refrain from discussing any more details of 1.4 in comp.sys.amiga until it's >released. Just a suggestion... > > -Chris >-- >Chris Lang, University of Michigan, College of Engineering +1 313 763 1832 > 4622 Bursley, Ann Arbor, MI, 48109 chrisl@caen.engin.umich.edu >WORK: National Center for Manufacturing Sciences, > 900 Victors Way, Suite 226, Ann Arbor, MI, 48108 +1 313 995 0300 >"I hate quotations. Tell me what you know." - Ralph Waldo Emerson This was presented in most Amiga magazines when 1.4 alpha was revealed. Apparently there were no non-disclosure agreements over the alpha as there were pictures of the screen in Amigo Sentry and Amazing Computing. If you don't believe me take a look at the Amazing Computing covering San Francisco DevCon. It had two full pages listing everything they new about 1.4. -- Ethan Ethan Solomita: es1@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu "If Commodore had to market sushi they'd call it `raw cold fish'" -- The Bandito, inevitably stolen from someone else
riley@batcomputer.tn.cornell.edu (Daniel S. Riley) (04/10/90)
[brutally edited to keep the line count down] In article <1990Apr10.024656.5574@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu> es1@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Ethan Solomita) writes: >In article <1990Apr9.220205.4144@caen.engin.umich.edu> chrisl@caen.engin.umich.edu (Chris Lang) writes: >>In article <90098.170806JKT100@psuvm.psu.edu> JKT100@psuvm.psu.edu (JKT) writes: >>>Fact: WB 1.4 is going to have a drawer where you put programs that will be >>> run upon startup. (sound like a Macintosh CDEV to you? Does to me.) >>Since you present this as a fact, I presume you have seen 1.4. [goes on about non-disclosure agreements] > This was presented in most Amiga magazines when 1.4 alpha >was revealed. Things do change between alpha and release--just because it was in alpha 16 doesn't mean it will be in the release version, and I certainly wouldn't claim any "facts" about the release version of 1.4 based on the materials published after the SF DevCon. -Dan Riley (riley@tcgould.tn.cornell.edu, cornell!batcomputer!riley) -Wilson Lab, Cornell University
gbbrooks@sybil.cs.Buffalo.EDU (G. Brandon Brooks) (04/11/90)
In article <1990Apr9.220205.4144@caen.engin.umich.edu> chrisl@caen.engin.umich.edu (Chris Lang) writes: >In article <90098.170806JKT100@psuvm.psu.edu> JKT100@psuvm.psu.edu (JKT) writes: >>Fact: WB 1.4 is going to have a drawer where you put programs that will be >> run upon startup. (sound like a Macintosh CDEV to you? Does to me.) > >Since you present this as a fact, I presume you have seen 1.4. Further, I >presume you signed a non-disclosure agreement. Therefore, you might want to >refrain from discussing any more details of 1.4 in comp.sys.amiga until it's >released. Just a suggestion... > > -Chris Back in August of 1989, Amazing Computing previewed AmigaDos 1.4 and had the following feature: "STARTUP DRAWER - Any icon in the startup drawer is executed when WB is loaded. This means if you purchase a program that needs to be run automatically, such as a reminder program, you just drag the startup icon into the startup drawer. Nice!" So, I think that this feature was made public. -Brandon!
fiddler@concertina.Sun.COM (Steve Hix) (04/11/90)
In article <216@caslon.cs.arizona.edu>, dave@cs.arizona.edu (David P. Schaumann) writes: > > |is coming about that both machines are growing uncomfortably similar as time > |goes on. > | > |Fact: The Mac IIfx has duplicated the Amiga's style of using support chips > | for I/O, and other tasks to relieve the CPU of such tedium > |Fact: WB 1.4 is going to have a drawer where you put programs that will be > | run upon startup. (sound like a Macintosh CDEV to you? Does to me.) > | > |These are just two examples among many. The Mac is copying Amiga in hardware, > |Amiga is copying Mac in software. > > Is it a crime to borrow a good idea? IMHO, only if it is also propriety > information... > > I doubt sincerely that there will be an "Amigatosh" as you say anytime > in the concievable future. The design philosiphies of the two machines are > light years apart... As I said above, I think this is just an example > of good ideas being used by others. Refreshing, after so long of the Not > Invented Here syndrome. I remember, several years before the Amiga appeared, discussions among various engineers at Apple about incorporating coprocessors to offload various tasks from the CPU...on the Apple II. Even then, it wasn't a new idea, what with processors running certain (*very* slow) disk drives for another company's computer. (And it wasn't original to *them* either.) We couldn't figure out why the Mac didn't have coprocessors to aid disk I/O and graphics in the first place. (But then, we were where we were {Apple// division} because we didn't have what it took to work in a *real* computer company. It must be true, Steve Jobs said so. In public. Twice. Before the Mac was ever announced, btw. Wonder why he wasn't univerally liked?) But that was all *long* ago in a previous life. A Good Idea is a Good Idea (usually) and deserves to be used wherever appropriate. I'd like to see all of use share and use good ideas, and all benefit thereby. ------------ "Up the airey mountain, down the rushy glen, we daren't go a-hunting for fear of little men..." ('cause Fish and Game has taken to hiring axe-carrying dwarves)
dksnsr@nmtsun.nmt.edu (Dr. Mosh) (04/11/90)
In article <90098.170806JKT100@psuvm.psu.edu> JKT100@psuvm.psu.edu (JKT) writes: >These are just two examples among many. The Mac is copying Amiga in hardware, >Amiga is copying Mac in software. > > Kurt I guess EVERYONE has tried to copy Mac in software then, after all, what are all the GUI's on the market based on? Most of them are just variations and improvements on the Mac interface... -D. Khoe -- ============================================================================= Dr. of Moshology | | | / \ /\ |/ Any system dksnsr@nmtsun.nmt.edu | |---||____|| |\ can be New Mexico Tech Computer Science | | || | \/ | \ cracked...
BAXTER_A@wehi.dn.mu.oz (04/11/90)
In article <1990Apr9.220205.4144@caen.engin.umich.edu>, chrisl@caen.engin.umich.edu (Chris Lang) writes: >>Fact: WB 1.4 is going to have a drawer where you put programs that will be >> run upon startup. (sound like a Macintosh CDEV to you? Does to me.) > > Since you present this as a fact, I presume you have seen 1.4. Further, I > presume you signed a non-disclosure agreement. Therefore, you might want to > refrain from discussing any more details of 1.4 in comp.sys.amiga until it's > released. Just a suggestion... > Ah. But since this feature HAS been publicly anounced and since the "look" of the WB has been freely distributed, both these facts have fallen into the public domain. Regards Alan
karl@sugar.hackercorp.com (Karl Lehenbauer) (04/11/90)
In article <4087@nmtsun.nmt.edu> dksnsr@nmtsun.nmt.edu (Dr. Mosh) writes: >I guess EVERYONE has tried to copy Mac in software then, after all, what >are all the GUI's on the market based on? Most of them are just variations >and improvements on the Mac interface... Oh, please. Apple didn't invent GUIs, Xerox did. And Apple's implementation substantially degraded their power. Xerox's multitasked and included an integrated object-oriented programming environment as well, and that was 15+ years ago, to boot. -- -- uunet!sugar!karl "I hate quotations. Tell me what you know." -- Emerson -- Usenet access: (713) 438-5018
obrien@aeroaero.org (Michael O'Brien) (04/12/90)
In article <5561@sugar.hackercorp.com>, karl@sugar.hackercorp.com (Karl Lehenbauer) writes: |> Oh, please. Apple didn't invent GUIs, Xerox did. And Apple's implementation |> substantially degraded their power. Xerox's multitasked and included an |> integrated object-oriented programming environment as well, and that was 15+ |> years ago, to boot. And one of the Xerox implementations was Smalltalk, and you can still buy it, and it's better than ever, except don't bother trying to get it for the Amiga. If you could, my purchase problems would be solved. As it is I'm gonna have to get a IIfx. Too bad. -- Mike O'Brien obrien@aerospace.aero.org
ddev@wam.umd.edu (Don DeVoe) (04/12/90)
In article <5561@sugar.hackercorp.com> karl@sugar.hackercorp.com (Karl Lehenbauer) writes: >In article <4087@nmtsun.nmt.edu> dksnsr@nmtsun.nmt.edu (Dr. Mosh) writes: >>I guess EVERYONE has tried to copy Mac in software then, after all, what >>are all the GUI's on the market based on? Most of them are just variations >>and improvements on the Mac interface... > >Oh, please. Apple didn't invent GUIs, Xerox did. And Apple's implementation >substantially degraded their power. Xerox's multitasked and included an >integrated object-oriented programming environment as well, and that was 15+ >years ago, to boot. Excuse me, but what do multitasking and object-oriented programming have to do with a GUI? Are you trying to say that Apple's interface is less powerful than the Xerox's? Have you ever used a Xerox? Do you know what you're saying?? Please tell me how your comments are relevant to the power of a GUI, and how you decided that Apple's GUI 'degraded' the power of the Xerox GUI...without talking about OS concerns. -- Don DeVoe ddve@epsl.umd.edu
fiddler@concertina.Sun.COM (Steve Hix) (04/12/90)
In article <5561@sugar.hackercorp.com>, karl@sugar.hackercorp.com (Karl Lehenbauer) writes: > > Oh, please. Apple didn't invent GUIs, Xerox did. Even Xerox wasn't the first. There was substantial work being done at various universities. Xerox was among the first to have a shot at a commercial success with one though...even though they blew their chance. Xerox depended on p[revious work done in universities and places like SRI with people like Evans and Sutherland and Doug Englebart. > And Apple's implementation substantially degraded their power. Depends on which system you refer to...the 128K Mac, certainly. > Xerox's multitasked and included an integrated object-oriented > programming environment as well, and that was 15+ years ago, to boot. So did the Lisa, though it wasn't quite as long ago. It would have been a pretty nice system, given something faster than a 7MHz 68000. Say, a 40MHz '030? It's hard to point out when a particular idea first occurred, partly because of poor historical records, partly because nobody was working in a vacuum. A given idea doesn't spring full-formed in an instant, Greek mythology notwithstanding, and it's hard to say where or when the initial starting point was reached. ------------ "Up the airey mountain, down the rushy glen, we daren't go a-hunting for fear of little men..." ('cause Fish and Game has taken to hiring axe-carrying dwarves)
andrewt@watnow.waterloo.edu (Andrew Thomas) (04/12/90)
In article <1990Apr11.182605.288@wam.umd.edu> ddev@wam.umd.edu (Don DeVoe) writes: >In article <5561@sugar.hackercorp.com> karl@sugar.hackercorp.com (Karl Lehenbauer) writes: >>Oh, please. Apple didn't invent GUIs, Xerox did. And Apple's implementation >>substantially degraded their power. Xerox's multitasked and included an >>integrated object-oriented programming environment as well, and that was 15+ >>years ago, to boot. > >Excuse me, but what do multitasking and object-oriented programming have to >do with a GUI? Are you trying to say that Apple's interface is less >powerful than the Xerox's? Have you ever used a Xerox? Do you know what you're >saying?? Please tell me how your comments are relevant to the power of a >GUI, and how you decided that Apple's GUI 'degraded' the power of the >Xerox GUI...without talking about OS concerns. I have used a Xerox. And an apple. I agree with Karl. The types of actions provided on mouse events were better: resizing, moving, iconifying, popup menus, semi-permanent popups, and lots more. The GUI was object oriented which, from a programmer's perspective, allowed very powerful things very easily, and allowed (through multiple inheritance) mixing the various abilities of the objects without having to do any work. From a user's perspective the ease of implementation of a powerful interface meant that they existed more frequently. Multitasking is not strictly a GUI issue, but it allowed things like active values and gauges attached to various events/variables/objects in a way that was truly tranparent to the user and programmer alike. I have never seen as good an interface and programming environment as on the Xerox lisp stations. I will admit that part of the beauty was possible because they were dedicated lisp workstations, allowing very good application integration, but even just at the windowing level they were second to none. The customizability on the things was absolute. A little more speed would have been nice, though. -- Andrew Thomas andrewt@watnow.waterloo.edu Systems Design Eng. University of Waterloo "If a million people do a stupid thing, it's still a stupid thing." - Opus
s320@cs.utexas.edu (Ted Woodward) (04/12/90)
In article <5561@sugar.hackercorp.com> karl@sugar.hackercorp.com (Karl Lehenbauer) writes: >Oh, please. Apple didn't invent GUIs, Xerox did. And Apple's implementation >substantially degraded their power. Xerox's multitasked and included an >integrated object-oriented programming environment as well, and that was 15+ >years ago, to boot. >-- >-- uunet!sugar!karl "I hate quotations. Tell me what you know." -- Emerson >-- Usenet access: (713) 438-5018 Give me a break! have you ever USED Smalltalk? The user interface is BRAIN DEAD! It is not intuitive in any remote stretch of the imagination...and the damn thing was expensive!!!!! For some reason, three possible costs come to mind: 22K, 15K, or 10K. I don't remember which is correct...and this is in 1975 dollars... Just because apple's machine didn't multitask (I vaguely remember a professor of mine with a Lisa saying it did, tho) doesn't mean the GUI was any less powerful...that has nothing to do with the GUI. As someone pointed out earlier, Exec does the multitasking, not Workbench. Xerox's GUI stuff did not produce ANYTHING as smooth as the mac (or the amiga, for that matter.) I know---I've (tried to) use smalltalk, on an HP 9000. -- Ted Woodward (s320@cs.utexas.edu) Someone shot the food...
hgm@ccvr1.ncsu.edu (Hal G. Meeks) (04/12/90)
In article <1990Apr11.182605.288@wam.umd.edu> ddev@wam.umd.edu (Don DeVoe) writes: >Excuse me, but what do multitasking and object-oriented programming have to >do with a GUI? Are you trying to say that Apple's interface is less >powerful than the Xerox's? Have you ever used a Xerox? Do you know what you're >saying?? Please tell me how your comments are relevant to the power of a >GUI, and how you decided that Apple's GUI 'degraded' the power of the >Xerox GUI...without talking about OS concerns. > >-- >Don DeVoe >ddve@epsl.umd.edu This argument reminds me of something that was available for the Mac a year or so before Multifinder. It was written by Andy Hertzfield (if you are a real Mac user you will know that name). It was sort of a precusor of Multifinder (I've been told that Apple bought the rights to it). It was called Juggler, not to be confused with Multifinder's other parent, the program Switcher. It was an alternate finder. Amoung it's more clever additions was an object oriented Resource editor (sort of like ResEdit built into the OS). Have an image file that is corrupt, that you want to try and piece together manually? No problem. Just change the resource so that the Mac thinks it's a text file (never mind that it really is). It was easy to use. Honest. It fit in well with the general idea of what the Mac was about. Yes, it wasn't 100% stable, but it was a good step in the right direction. At least the users had an easy way to edit icons to suit their own tastes, if they never did anything else with it. This is where marketing comes into play. This power can be used to make the overall system more flexible, but it also means the user has to learn a little bit more about how the Mac handles files. Needless to say, when Multifinder came out, I was very disappointed. Seems that Apple doesn't trust the average user. These basic assumptions about end users (idiots) led me away from the Mac. I wanted a machine that could grow as I learned more. --hal -- hgm@ccvr1.ncsu.edu "Rebellion is like witchcraft. That's what it is, netoprhm@ncsuvm.bitnet it's like witchcraft." Missouri State Rep. Jean Dixon, on labeling "offensive music". USA Today, March 20, 1990
martens@ketch.cis.ohio-state.edu (Jeff Martens) (04/12/90)
In article <1990Apr11.182605.288@wam.umd.edu> ddev@wam.umd.edu (Don DeVoe) writes: >In article <5561@sugar.hackercorp.com> karl@sugar.hackercorp.com (Karl Lehenbauer) writes: >>In article <4087@nmtsun.nmt.edu> dksnsr@nmtsun.nmt.edu (Dr. Mosh) writes: >>>I guess EVERYONE has tried to copy Mac in software then, after all, what >>>are all the GUI's on the market based on? Most of them are just variations >>>and improvements on the Mac interface... >>Oh, please. Apple didn't invent GUIs, Xerox did. And Apple's implementation >>substantially degraded their power. Xerox's multitasked and included an >>integrated object-oriented programming environment as well, and that was 15+ >>years ago, to boot. >Excuse me, but what do multitasking and object-oriented programming have to >do with a GUI? Are you trying to say that Apple's interface is less >powerful than the Xerox's? Have you ever used a Xerox? Do you know what you're >saying?? Please tell me how your comments are relevant to the power of a >GUI, and how you decided that Apple's GUI 'degraded' the power of the >Xerox GUI...without talking about OS concerns. Two comments: 1) Whether you prefer the Mac or the old Xerox GUI is irrelevant. The point stands that Apple didn't invent it, and claiming that everybody with a GUI is simply copying Apple is like saying that every airplane with a propeller is simply a copy of a Sopwith Camel. 2) I don't see how you can compare the power or GUIs without bringing "OS concerns" into the discussion. The biggest edge the Amiga has over other PCs in its price range is multitasking -- this was the single most important factor in convincing me to buy the Amiga, since it's a pain to move between a multitasking system at work or school and something more primitive (like my old Kaypro 4) at home. I taught a programming course that used Macs, and hated them. It seemed as though I was always waiting around (point, click, doze) for something to happen, whereas on a system with true pre-emptive multitasking I can always switch to another task while waiting for something time-consuming to complete. 2.5) This is also relevant when people start comparing clock speeds, etc. A machine with a slower cycle time can still be much more pleasant to use if it multitasks, because overall the user still spends more time working and less waiting around. -=- -- Jeff (martens@cis.ohio-state.edu) Boston art museum director when asked what it means that Cincinnati art director may face a jail term: "Don't take a job in Cincinnati."
sho@maxwell.physics.purdue.edu (Sho Kuwamoto) (04/12/90)
In article <1990Apr11.232906.2030@ncsuvx.ncsu.edu> hgm@ccvr1.ncsu.edu (Hal G. Meeks) writes: >[describes juggler], alternate finder. Amoung it's more clever >additions was an object oriented Resource editor (sort of like ResEdit built >into the OS). I hate to bring up System 7 again, but it doesn't seem completely inappropriate here. One of the supposed additions to the system 7 finder is that you can drop resources into the system file as if it were a folder. Drag an icon in, drop it. I think you can also double click it to open it up and see what's inside. -Sho -- sho@physics.purdue.edu <<-- ok, so it's not out yet.
sparks@corpane.UUCP (John Sparks) (04/12/90)
JKT100@psuvm.psu.edu (JKT) writes: >In article <1342@lpami.wimsey.bc.ca>, lphillips@lpami.wimsey.bc.ca (Larry >Phillips) says: >>It is my sincere wish that the Amiga never becomes another Mac, just >>as it is the sincere wish of many or most Mac proponents that the Mac >>never becomes another Amiga. >Unfortunately, while I agree with this wholeheartedly, I must say I think it >is coming about that both machines are growing uncomfortably similar as time >goes on. >Fact: The Mac IIfx has duplicated the Amiga's style of using support chips > for I/O, and other tasks to relieve the CPU of such tedium >Fact: WB 1.4 is going to have a drawer where you put programs that will be > run upon startup. (sound like a Macintosh CDEV to you? Does to me.) FACT: AmigaDOS has always had this to some extent. The S: directory is where all startup stuff goes, and where execute looks for batch files if it's not in the current directory. This is not a big deal. But it will make things easier for WB users I guess. >These are just two examples among many. The Mac is copying Amiga in hardware, >Amiga is copying Mac in software. Sheesh, don't say stuff like that even in jest, that's all we need is Apple sueing Amiga. They are nothing alike. No more than either is like Xwindows, or OS/2 windows. They both have Icons and a mouse and windows but they are different. -- John Sparks | D.I.S.K. 24hrs 2400bps. Accessable via Starlink (Louisville KY) sparks@corpane.UUCP | | PH: (502) 968-DISK The future isn't what it used to be.
BAXTER_A@wehi.dn.mu.oz (04/13/90)
In article <134305@sun.Eng.Sun.COM>, fiddler@concertina.Sun.COM (Steve Hix) writes: > In article <5561@sugar.hackercorp.com>, karl@sugar.hackercorp.com (Karl Lehenbauer) writes: >> >> Oh, please. Apple didn't invent GUIs, Xerox did. > > Even Xerox wasn't the first> >> Xerox's multitasked and included an integrated object-oriented >> programming environment as well, and that was 15+ years ago, to boot. > > So did the Lisa, though it wasn't quite as long ago. It would have been > a pretty nice system, given something faster than a 7MHz 68000. Say, a > 40MHz '030? > > It's hard to point out when a particular idea first occurred, partly > because of poor historical records, partly because nobody was working > in a vacuum. > > A given idea doesn't spring full-formed in an instant, Greek mythology > notwithstanding, and it's hard to say where or when the initial starting > point was reached. > It is, however easy to pin point the start of any successful implementation, which was in 1974, when my father (Prof JE Baxter) visited Zerox as a communications consultant to help Zerox rewrite the photocopier manuals so people could understand them. He instead suggested that the "instructions" be implicit in the machine design: ie. a green button for go (copy) a red button for stop, a red light for error - preferably with a meaningful picture of the error, and so on. On that visit, he was invited to discuss ways of making computers more accessible to laypeople, and suggested a similar thing: A screen consisting of pictures that represented what "pushing" then might achieve. I find it most amusing to remember my fathers confusion when presented with a fully functional user interface. He just could not get the hang of windows! "But that little square doesn't LOOK like it puts things behind!!" he would thunder. Oh well, another little piece of history. Regards Alan > ------------ > "Up the airey mountain, down the rushy glen, > we daren't go a-hunting for fear of little men..." > ('cause Fish and Game has taken to hiring axe-carrying dwarves)