johnston@oscar.ccm.udel.edu (Bill Johnston) (03/08/91)
Repost of a message posted to IBM PC groups by Marc Ries: From: ries@venice.SEDD.TRW.COM (Marc Ries) Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms,comp.windows.misc,comp.windows.ms.programmer,comp.sys.ibm.pc.misc Apple Computer wins ruling against 'Windows' SAN FRANCISCO (UPI) _ A federal judge gave a preliminary ruling Wednesday in favor of Apple Computer in its suit claiming copyright infringement by Microsoft with its ``Windows'' program for IBM computers and compatibles. In the closely watched suit over the rights to a ``user friendly'' computer, Apple alleges that Microsoft is using ideas from its Macintosh computers for its popular program run on IBM and compatible machines. U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker cleared the way for a trial in Apple's suit against Microsoft and Hewlett-Packard. The judge denied motions from Microsoft and Hewlett-Packard and upheld Apple's claim that the Macintosh computer audio-visual displays are original to Apple. The judge also held that the major portions of Macintosh audio-visual displays _ overlapping windows and icons _ are not licensed to Microsoft and Hewlett-Packard. ``We're pleased with this favorable ruling and look forward to moving to the core of this case the issue of copyright infringement by Microsoft and Hewlett-Packard,'' said Edward B. Stead, Apple's vice president and general counsel. ``With these issues behind us, we believe our case is strengthened. We're confident that the remaining issues in this case will be resolved in our favor.'' Apple claims displays used in Windows 2.03 were original to Apple and not covered by the scope of a 1985 agreement between Apple and Microsoft. Those audio-visual displays include overlapping windows and the appearance and manipulation of icons, or figures on the screen. The court upheld that assertion. Both Hewlett-Packard and Microsoft argued that the Macintosh user interface is not entitled to copyright protection because it had been copied from earlier programs, principally Xerox Star and SmallTalk. The court said the Macintosh user interface programs were original works, independently created by Apple. Apple filed suit against Microsoft and Hewlett-Packard in March 1988 to protect its copyrights against infringement by Microsoft's Windows 2. 03 and Hewlett-Packard's New Wave. Apple's audio-visual displays make the Macintosh personal computer unique and distinctive, and in computer parlance, ``user friendly.'' Judge Walker's decision did not determine the issue of copyright infringement, which will be resolved in the next phase of litigation. A status conference will be held to determine the schedule for the resolution of the remaining issues in the case. (03-07-91)
pfr654@csc.anu.edu.au (03/15/91)
In article <46873@nigel.ee.udel.edu>, johnston@oscar.ccm.udel.edu (Bill Johnston) writes: > Repost of a message posted to IBM PC groups by Marc Ries: > From: ries@venice.SEDD.TRW.COM (Marc Ries) > Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms,comp.windows.misc,comp.windows.ms.programmer,comp.sys.ibm.pc.misc > > Apple Computer wins ruling against 'Windows' GO APPLE!!! I always was suspicious of Windows. I am hoping for a final ruling something like that of the Polaroid vs Kodak suit, where the poor suckers who have bought Windows to try to turn their miserable PCs into Macs are left out in the cold :-) Apple Computer could, of course be really nice and allow such people to trade in their MS Windows for a Mac-for-Intel-processors interface, which I heard they were thinking of producing. I don't care what people say about 'industry standards' and 'millions of copies of windows have been sold' - the fact is that it is a copy of the Mac interface, and Microsoft has gone too far in duplicating the friendliness of it (as has HP, Sun, IBM, maybe even NeXT). If they want a particular thing they should be willing to pay for it, or else develop a whole new interface (after all, the Mac interface is about 10 years old - surely some new ideas have surfaced in that time). ************************************************************************* Phil Ryan * No matter where ANU Department of Physics and Theoretical Physics * you go... GPO Box 4, Canberra, Australia *... there you are. pfr654@csc.anu.edu.au * phone:06-249 4678 fax:06-249 0741 * Buckaroo Banzai *************************************************************************
eaeu137@orion.oac.uci.edu (Andrew Theodore Laurence) (03/15/91)
a previous posting...
[lots of ranting and raving about how everyone with a GUI is stealing the
Apple interface]
Oh, please. Surely you realize that Apple lifted the interface from Xerox??
An interesting side note is that Nutek, the folks who make that new Maclone
ship set, licensed thier GUI from Xerox, thereby idemnifying it from Apple
lawsuits (Xerox sued Apple over that interface and lost). A brilliant move,
as the interfaces have already been "proven" to be unrelated.
--Andrew Laurence
eaeu137@orion.oac.uci.educohill@vtserf.cc.vt.edu (Andrew M. Cohill) (03/15/91)
In article <1991Mar15.101202.1@csc.anu.edu.au> pfr654@csc.anu.edu.au writes: >> Apple Computer wins ruling against 'Windows' > >GO APPLE!!! > >I always was suspicious of Windows. I am hoping for a final ruling something >like that of the Polaroid vs Kodak suit, where the poor suckers who have >bought Windows to try to turn their miserable PCs into Macs are left out in >the cold :-) I dunno. We just got a couple copies of Windows here, because there are many more DOS users on campus than Mac users, and Windows is a joke. The 3.0 seems to have been deliberately designed not to look and work like the Mac interface, and everything seems awkward and clumsy. The windowing model is just plain stupid and confusing--some windows will only open inside of other windows, while other kinds of windows, with exactly the same appearance, can be moved anywhere on the screen. Lots of other dumb junk abounds.... I am sure Windows seems great to people who have had trouble with the simplisticly complicated DOS interface, but compared to any other windowing system (Mac, Motif, NeXT....) it is still just a toy. So why is it "successful"? I think it has to do more with the applications that are just now becoming available, that do offer some of the functionality of Mac apps, but we had all that stuff six years ago. Windows is a kluge. The Mac is not. One hell of a difference, in my opinion, and I still wonder why Apple should even care. As long as they keep pushing the Mac, Microsoft will never catch up. In one of the trade rags (back page of InfoWorld, I think), the point was made that Windows apps will never achieve the same level of functionality that Mac apps have because a Windows developer cannot count on a consistent set of hardware features--any Mac developer knows that every Mac user has high-res graphics, built-in networking, great sound output( and now sound input), and the same kind of processor (functionally, the 68000 differs little from the '030, unlike the '286 and the '386). Pity the poor DOS developer who actually has to worry if his or her Window app will run properly on a dinky '286 machine with an old mono display, no network, and no sound; *and* also work properly on a high end 386 with XGA color running Novell and a bunch of wierd high end hardware kluges to speed the software up. Windows and Mac--it's no contest, Apple...... -- | ...we have to look for routes of power our teachers never | imagined, or were encouraged to avoid. T. Pynchon | |Andy Cohill cohill@vtserf.cc.vt.edu VPI&SU
folta@tove.cs.umd.edu (Wayne Folta) (03/16/91)
>Oh, please. Surely you realize that Apple lifted the interface from Xerox??
As I understand it, the dual claims that Microsoft was making:
1. Whatever Microsoft stole was covered by an agreement with Apple in 1985.
2. That Apple didn't have any legal standing anyhow, since they stole
their ideas from XEROX.
were both disallowed in this latest ruling. I think I read in the Wall Street
Journal that the judge had specifically said that Apple's ideas were unique
and were created independently of XEROX. The fact that XEROX lost its suit
while Apple's is allowed to go ahead says something. (Though one of XEROX's
problems was waiting too long to file suit. Also, I believe that I read that
the things that Apple directly borrowed are covered under a secret agreement
with XEROX.)
On another topic, Microsoft is now in hot water with the government over
allegations that it unfairly used its ownership of DOS and Windows to
sandbag competitors in the applications arena. It has been alleged that
MS talked others into developing for OS/2, while it developed for
Windows, knowing full well that it would sacrifice OS/2.
MS has more than one legal problem to worry about! I have also read that once
the government starts mucking around in MS's internal memos, it can find and
prosecute for things that have nothing to do with its initial investigation.
It seems that the proverbial 500-lb gorilla (MS) has to tussle with a
400-lb gorilla (Apple) and a 2000-lb gorilla (the FTC).
--
Wayne Folta (folta@cs.umd.edu 128.8.128.8)doner@henri.ucsb.edu (John Doner) (03/16/91)
In article <27E02D24.699@orion.oac.uci.edu> eaeu137@orion.oac.uci.edu (Andrew Theodore Laurence) writes: >a previous posting... > [lots of ranting and raving about how everyone with a GUI is stealing the > Apple interface] > >Oh, please. Surely you realize that Apple lifted the interface from Xerox?? Yes, Apple owes a debt to the Xerox work, but "lifted" is hardly the right word. Remember, software is developed by PEOPLE, not corporations. Work on GUIs went on at Xerox PARC for years. But Xerox management did not understand it, did not know what to do with it, and basically ignored it. Finally, the researchers quit in exasperation (if not disgust), some of them, e.g. Larry Tesler, ending up at Apple. What's more, there's a difference between a laboratory curiousity and a finished product. Apple and its engineers invested great effort, time, money, and creativity in putting together a few ideas that were current in the field with many of their own and making a real product. As for Windows, the original version, the one current when the Apple lawsuit was filed, was no more than a slavish copy. It contained no clue that the designers understood GUIs, or any of the trade-offs that go into producing a coherent user-friendly interface. All they wanted to do was produce something that *looked* like a Mac. So salesmen could tell naive customers asking about the merits of buying a Mac with its GUI, "Sure, the Mac interface is good, but you can get the same thing cheaper with this PC clone; see, it looks just the same." Since then, the Windows designers have improved, and put in some creativity of their own. But I have a hard time forgiving them for the original rip-off. Apple borrowed from the Xerox work, but they put lots of themselves into it. Microsoft just copied. John E. Doner doner@henri.ucsb.edu (805)893-3941 Dept. Mathematics, UCSB, Santa Barbara, CA 93106
strobl@gmdzi.gmd.de (Wolfgang Strobl) (03/16/91)
cohill@vtserf.cc.vt.edu (Andrew M. Cohill) writes: >I dunno. We just got a couple copies of Windows here, because there are >many more DOS users on campus than Mac users, and Windows is a joke. >The 3.0 seems to have been deliberately designed not to look and work >like the Mac interface, and everything seems awkward and clumsy. The >windowing model is just plain stupid and confusing--some windows will >only open inside of other windows, while other kinds of windows, with >exactly the same appearance, can be moved anywhere on the screen. Lots >of other dumb junk abounds.... Very bright. Just because some windows are overlapped and other's aren't, the windowing model is "just plain stupid and confusing"? >I am sure Windows seems great to people who have had trouble with the >simplisticly complicated DOS interface, but compared to any other >windowing system (Mac, Motif, NeXT....) it is still just a toy. Funny. The Motif window manager is more or less a MS-Windows clone. The functional components of an application window are the same, on both systems: the place, layout and functionality of the control menu on the left of the title bar, the minimize and maximize buttons to the right of the title bar, the place, layout and functionality of the menu bar below, the keyboard interface of everything (down to the Alt-F4 for terminating an application), ... Motif and MS-Windows are very similar and quite different from the Macintosh GUI. Your above comparison is flawed. >So why is it "successful"? I think it has to do more with the >applications that are just now becoming available, that do offer some of >the functionality of Mac apps, but we had all that stuff six years ago. What about multitasking. Did you have that, six years ago? >Windows is a kluge. The Mac is not. One hell of a difference, in my >opinion, and I still wonder why Apple should even care. As long as they >keep pushing the Mac, Microsoft will never catch up. Windows suffers from its relation to the DOS file system, no doubt. And the Macintosh has the advantage that everything, hardware and system software is created by one company. >In one of the trade rags (back page of InfoWorld, I think), the point >was made that Windows apps will never achieve the same level of >functionality that Mac apps have because a Windows developer cannot >count on a consistent set of hardware features--any Mac developer knows >that every Mac user has high-res graphics, built-in networking, great >sound output( and now sound input), and the same kind of processor >(functionally, the 68000 differs little from the '030, unlike the '286 >and the '386). What about this tiny, 512 pixel wide screen? Does that count as high-res graphics? In my opinion, Macintosh developers have to take smaller screens into account, compared with Windows developers. Anyway, a Windows developer may have to live with more variance of hardware features, but he or she enjoys a software interface which successfully hides most of the differences. The Intel series of processors are more suitable for a Windows or Mac like OS than the Motorola processors, because they allow it to move code segments on the fly, for example. They have parts of the memory management built right into the hardware. > Pity the poor DOS developer who actually has to worry if >his or her Window app will run properly on a dinky '286 machine with >an old mono display, no network, and no sound; *and* also work properly >on a high end 386 with XGA color running Novell and a bunch of wierd >high end hardware kluges to speed the software up. As a Windows developer I assure you that this is not much of a problem. (And don't call us "DOS developers", PLEASE). >Windows and Mac--it's no contest, Apple...... Of course it's a contest, but an unusual one: either both parties win, or both loose. You seem to prefer the latter case. Wolfgang Strobl #include <std.disclaimer.hpp>
brett@aardvark.ucs.uoknor.edu (Brett Morrow) (03/16/91)
In article <1468@vtserf.cc.vt.edu> cohill@vtserf.cc.vt.edu (Andrew M. Cohill) writes: >In article <1991Mar15.101202.1@csc.anu.edu.au> pfr654@csc.anu.edu.au writes: >>> Apple Computer wins ruling against 'Windows' >> >>GO APPLE!!! >> >>I always was suspicious of Windows. I am hoping for a final ruling something >>like that of the Polaroid vs Kodak suit, where the poor suckers who have >>bought Windows to try to turn their miserable PCs into Macs are left out in >>the cold :-) > >I dunno. We just got a couple copies of Windows here, because there are >many more DOS users on campus than Mac users, and Windows is a joke. >The 3.0 seems to have been deliberately designed not to look and work >like the Mac interface, and everything seems awkward and clumsy. The >windowing model is just plain stupid and confusing--some windows will >only open inside of other windows, while other kinds of windows, with >exactly the same appearance, can be moved anywhere on the screen. Lots >of other dumb junk abounds.... > >I am sure Windows seems great to people who have had trouble with the >simplisticly complicated DOS interface, but compared to any other >windowing system (Mac, Motif, NeXT....) it is still just a toy. > >So why is it "successful"? I think it has to do more with the >applications that are just now becoming available, that do offer some of >the functionality of Mac apps, but we had all that stuff six years ago. >Windows is a kluge. The Mac is not. One hell of a difference, in my >opinion, and I still wonder why Apple should even care. As long as they >keep pushing the Mac, Microsoft will never catch up. Compitition in the future. Microsoft is making major headway in Windows development. They really are not trying to match apple that would be fullish (and make the same mistakes apple has). They are developing what they need in terms of a DOS windows environment. In the dos world the command line interpreter still remain supreme. I wish I could get one for the Mac instead of the klugy windows interface that I am forced to use. At least in the DOS world I have a choice. > >In one of the trade rags (back page of InfoWorld, I think), the point >was made that Windows apps will never achieve the same level of >functionality that Mac apps have because a Windows developer cannot >count on a consistent set of hardware features--any Mac developer knows >that every Mac user has high-res graphics, built-in networking, great >sound output( and now sound input), and the same kind of processor >(functionally, the 68000 differs little from the '030, unlike the '286 >and the '386). Pity the poor DOS developer who actually has to worry if >his or her Window app will run properly on a dinky '286 machine with >an old mono display, no network, and no sound; *and* also work properly >on a high end 386 with XGA color running Novell and a bunch of wierd >high end hardware kluges to speed the software up. > In the Mac world there really are just as many problems as the PC world. If you look for instance at the readme file for MWORD 4.0D. All the fixes are for new hardware. Also, If they are the same and no developers have to worry, why does apple have to keep making versions of the operating systems to only work on the new machines. Also, I am running a Mac IIsi and there sure are a lot of programs that have problems with the hardware and configuration of this machine. Developers for mac still have to worry about compatibilty as developers for DOS. And if you had good software that used the advanced features fo the 68030 they you would have to worry about that too. In the DOS world they try to push for good fast software, not slower, safer software of the MAC World. >Windows and Mac--it's no contest, Apple...... > > >-- >| ...we have to look for routes of power our teachers never >| imagined, or were encouraged to avoid. T. Pynchon >| >|Andy Cohill cohill@vtserf.cc.vt.edu VPI&SU > I still hold to statement IBM or APPLE which is best? Well depends on what you want to do. Mac and IBM both have there good and bad point. I like MAC and I like IBM. I get productive work done on both and I have recomended both computers to people. The windows is not a replacement for the MAC but an extention of DOS to make some IBM applications better. A MAC is no replacement for WINDOWS. They both do a good job and they both have there uses. these are just my views. Brett Morrow -------------------------------------------------------- Internet: Brett@aardvark.ucs.uoknor.edu Bitnet Brett@uokucsvx
delaney@xn.ll.mit.edu (John R. Delaney) (03/16/91)
PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE move this thread to comp.sys.mac.misc. It is much more general than is appropriate for comp.sys.mac.system. John
wieser@fsd.cpsc.ucalgary.ca (Bernhard Wieser) (03/16/91)
You refer to the wonderful LISP machine, the Xerox Star, but how can you 'lift' (implied steal) anything when you have hired some of the people who worked on the project? -- ( Bernie Wieser, wieser@cpsc.ucalgary.ca, BSWieser@uncamult.BITNET ) ( 4rth Year Dbl.Mgr Cpsc Clhc University of Calgary | ) ( S/H Developer Dept. of Psychology, " " " \|/ ) ( Octavian Micro Development Group --- o --- )
john@newave.UUCP (John A. Weeks III) (03/16/91)
In article <1468@vtserf.cc.vt.edu> cohill@vtserf.cc.vt.edu (Andrew M. Cohill): > In article <1991Mar15.101202.1@csc.anu.edu.au> pfr654@csc.anu.edu.au: > > GO APPLE!!! > So why is it "successful"? [ discussion on windows 3.0 deleted ] I was going to do a top ten list, but I am a bit grogy (1:00 AM), so just a few random notes: 1. Windows has an excellent card game that even allows PC dweebs to win. 2. DOS users are acustomed to buying shelfware. 3. The "Windows 3.0" start-up screen lets others know that you are in the "in crowd" without even having to use windows. 4. Windows is equally hard to install on any PC machine. 5. Most hardware dealers give Windows 3 away to promote add-on sales. 6. Windows is an excuse for PC dweebs to justify buying 4 megabytes of memory that they would not otherwise be able to use. 7. Windows is just like the Macintosh but on a PC. (tee-hee!) 8. The programming interface changes with every Windows release, which puts novices at the same level as power programmers. 9. Windows turns your PC into a screaming multi-tasking power-house. 10. Windows allows you to use that mouse you purchased 3 years ago in a fit of Macintosh envy. (BTW, #1 above does not imply that I think all PC users are dweebs. After all, I am a PC user, and I am not a dweeb. Rather, when I say dweeb, I mean to refer to corporate management type PC "power users" that barely know how to turn the power on and think that booting 123 constitutes a computer skill.) -john- -- +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ John A. Weeks III (612) 942-6969 john@newave.mn.org NeWave Communications ...uunet!tcnet!wd0gol!newave!john
strobl@gmdzi.gmd.de (Wolfgang Strobl) (03/16/91)
doner@henri.ucsb.edu (John Doner) writes: >As for Windows, the original version, the one current when the Apple >lawsuit was filed, was no more than a slavish copy. As far as I know, the Apple lawsuit wasn't filed against the original version. Anyway, I would like to hear some arguments why you think that Windows (either version) is a "slavish copy", in your opinion. Both systems use rectangular windows of various sorts, but the specifiy look and feel of the user interface is quite different - where the menues are located, when and how a window is resized, how scroll bars work. The handling of the keyboard is very different (and better in Windows in my opinion, by the way). The standardization on the "application" as the main building block in Windows (which makes the "desk accessory" paradigm obsolet), is another example where both systems differ quite radically. A more detailed analysis would disclose more differences between the two architectures and the look&feel. Before you argue that these are minor differences induced by the different hardware platform, take a look at the original version of GEM, which runs on the same platform. *That* was a "slavish copy". You can compare it feature for feature: desktop with folders, exploding folders, menu bar at the top, system folder, position and function of the various controls surrounding an application window, desk accessories - most elements are nearly identical on both systems, GEM and Mac. Perhaps you confused GEM and Windows? > It contained no >clue that the designers understood GUIs, or any of the trade-offs that >go into producing a coherent user-friendly interface. All they wanted >to do was produce something that *looked* like a Mac. Nobody doubts that Apple has specialized in friendly user interface design. But don't jump to the conclusion that everybody else is plain stupid. From reading most of the Windows documentation and literature, I got the impression that the authors understood GUIs quite well. Nowhere is any direct or indirect indication that the main purpose of the system is to create something which looks like a Mac. Your statement and similar ones indicate that you do not understand the trade-offs that are necessary to have a GUI built on top of components from different sources, with no central control. > So salesmen >could tell naive customers asking about the merits of buying a Mac >with its GUI, "Sure, the Mac interface is good, but you can get the >same thing cheaper with this PC clone; see, it looks just the same." Sure. What whould you say in place of that salesman? And do you believe everything salesmen say? >Since then, the Windows designers have improved, and put in some >creativity of their own. But I have a hard time forgiving them for >the original rip-off. Apple borrowed from the Xerox work, but they >put lots of themselves into it. Microsoft just copied. This is such a blatant example of a biased statement, that it could become a classic. What about putting the last two sentences into your signature? ;-) Wolfgang Strobl #include <std.disclaimer.hpp>
gillies@m.cs.uiuc.edu (Don Gillies) (03/17/91)
You can't deny people a right to practice their livelihood, and if someone has spent their life developing windowing systems then after leaving work at one corporation, after a short period of time, they are allowed to continue their work along the same lines (as long as patents are not infringed). In my experience the Mac is a big step beyond Xerox Star/Viewpoint. Xerox had an unreleased paint program but its interface was awful. Xerox did not start working on a paint *product* for outside release until 2 years after the Mac came out. The interface is *still* awful (last time I looked). Xerox did not have a clipboard that would hold picture language commands for interapplication communication. Xerox tried to integrate everything into one word processor, Because of this, they missed the chance to standardize an open architecture with a user-interface guide. The Mac system software is about 2-4 times faster than Xerox software, even with the microcode acceleration in the Star. Don Gillies | University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign gillies@cs.uiuc.edu | Digital Computer Lab, 1304 W. Springfield, Urbana IL ---------------------+------------------------------------------------------ "UGH! WAR! ... What is it GOOD FOR? ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!" - the song "WAR" by Edwin Starr, circa 1971 --
jp48+@andrew.cmu.edu (Jonathan Pace) (03/17/91)
Since Mr. Strobl would like to hear an argument why the original version of windows is a "slavish copy", I'll give him one. The original version of windows, which Apple did not file suit against, was part of a licensing agreement with Apple. So, if you want to argue that it was an imitation of the Mac, it was. If you want to argue it wasn't since they had legal agreements to produce it, it wasn't. You decide. Apple filed suit because MS tried to re-engineer the parts that Apple wouldn't let them use. As I understand it, MS isn't able to produce any evidence that they used a clean room in their development. Apple contends that MS examined the codes and tried to massage them enough to _claim_ their own creative process went into them. Naturally they had to work around the many DOS systems on the market, but they started from Apple code, not a blank sheet (Apple's contention, not my statement). Personally, using Windows is not as easy as using the Mac. I've never programmed either, so I won't labor that point. It seems to have been beaten to death already. Jon Pace WARNING: My veiws contain backward messages that may give you the wrong idea that I care.
francis@zaphod.uchicago.edu (03/17/91)
In article <1991Mar15.185425.23156@uokmax.ecn.uoknor.edu> brett@aardvark.ucs.uoknor.edu (Brett Morrow) writes: [comment from nwc1@midway.uchicago.edu about how Mac apps are less likely to break] In the Mac world there really are just as many problems as the PC world. If you look for instance at the readme file for MWORD 4.0D. All the fixes are for new hardware. Yes, and there's a good reason for this, too: MICROSOFT BREAKS THE RULES. It always has. You have to kind of wonder about whether Windows developers are going to be able to count on any kind of reliability with future Windows releases. (Saw a comment the other day that the only way to get a TSR (INIT) to work under Mess-Dos is to use some undocumented DOS calls. MS knows this, and has said so in one publication (MS-DOS Encyclopedia, I believe), but hasn't moved those calls into the permissible set.) Besides, citing MS Word is kind of silly. "Yes, we're developing software to run on our competitor's machine. Do we want to make users temporarily upset when it breaks, or permanently happy with their machine?" "Gee, I dunno, Boss..." "You're fired." Also, If they are the same and no developers have to worry, why does apple have to keep making versions of the operating systems to only work on the new machines. Because Apple breaks the rules. They can get away with it, because they know what they can do. They know that, when a new Mac comes out, the System will be updated to work with it. (After all, if somebody buys the machine, he'll get the latest System, and everything will be hunky-dory. :-) Most developers would rather not have to do that, so they toe the line. Also, I am running a Mac IIsi and there sure are a lot of programs that have problems with the hardware and configuration of this machine. True. I don't know why; the same thing happened with the IIci. In that case it was primarily the on-board video, I think. My guess would be that most of the breakage is due to the new Sound Manager (sound is really a sore point--it's broken many times) and developer carelessness. as developers for DOS. And if you had good software that used the advanced features fo the 68030 they you would have to worry about that too. In the DOS world they try to push for good fast software, not slower, safer software of the MAC World. I think I'd rather be a bit than take a chance on losing my work to something so stupid as a compatibility problem, thank you very much. -- /============================================================================\ | Francis Stracke | My opinions are my own. I don't steal them.| | Department of Mathematics |=============================================| | University of Chicago | Until you stalk and overrun, | | francis@zaphod.uchicago.edu | you can't devour anyone. -- Hobbes | \============================================================================/
john@newave.UUCP (John A. Weeks III) (03/17/91)
In article <1991Mar15.224201.2622@cpsc.ucalgary.ca> wieser@fsd.cpsc.ucalgary.ca (Bernhard Wieser) writes: > You refer to the wonderful LISP machine, the Xerox Star, but how can you > 'lift' (implied steal) anything when you have hired some of the people who > worked on the project? Most high-tech companies require employees to sign a confidentiality agreement that prohibits an employee to release any company information during or after employment. Some companies go so far as to make claims on any "invention" that a former employee creates for a period of time after employment (1 to 5 years). Even if you don't have an explicit agreement, there are trade secret laws (in the USA, at least). For example, a person might expect to be sued if they release the client list of a former employeer to a competitor. But you are right when talking about the people. Alan Kay went to Apple, Bill Metcalf started 3Com, Massaro, Liddel and Charles Irby started Metaphor, and both HP and Microsoft hired ex-PARC employees. You could ask how any company can own any piece over any of the other companies involved. But a better question to ask is why did Xerox fail when it had all of these bright people with all of these good ideas? -john- -- +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ John A. Weeks III (612) 942-6969 john@newave.mn.org NeWave Communications ...uunet!tcnet!wd0gol!newave!john
francis@zaphod.uchicago.edu (03/17/91)
In article <4321@gmdzi.gmd.de> strobl@gmdzi.gmd.de (Wolfgang Strobl) writes: What about this tiny, 512 pixel wide screen? Does that count as high-res graphics? Yes, it does. 72 pixels/inch. And that's universal (except for this blasted new 64 pixel/inch CheapColor monitor they just came out with), so developers know their screens will look the same wherever. -- /============================================================================\ | Francis Stracke | My opinions are my own. I don't steal them.| | Department of Mathematics |=============================================| | University of Chicago | Until you stalk and overrun, | | francis@zaphod.uchicago.edu | you can't devour anyone. -- Hobbes | \============================================================================/
strobl@gmdzi.gmd.de (Wolfgang Strobl) (03/17/91)
jp48+@andrew.cmu.edu (Jonathan Pace) writes: > Since Mr. Strobl would like to hear an argument why the original version of >windows is a "slavish copy", I'll give him one. > The original version of windows, which Apple did not file suit against, was >part of a licensing agreement with Apple. So, if you want to argue that it was >an imitation of the Mac, it was. If you want to argue it wasn't since they had >legal agreements to produce it, it wasn't. You decide. I don't know the exact contents of the licensing agreement you refer to, so I don't have an opinion about whether Microsoft has or had the legal right to create an imitation of the GUI of the Macintosh. My argument is that it doesn't matter, because they didn't do it. I tried to describe a few areas where I see technical and architectural differences between the two GUIs, to substantiate my statement, and asked for technical, not legal facts which might give reasons for the so far unsubstantiated description of Windows as a "slavish copy" of the Macintosh GUI. So far I got nothing. > Apple filed suit because MS tried to re-engineer the parts that Apple >wouldn't let them use. As I understand it, MS isn't able to produce any >evidence that they used a clean room in their development. Apple contends >that MS examined the codes and tried to massage them enough to _claim_ their >own creative process went into them. Naturally they had to work around the >many DOS systems on the market, but they started from Apple code, not a blank >sheet (Apple's contention, not my statement). I have no way to to check the truth of such facts other than looking at what is visible to an ordinary developer. From that point of view, it sounds quite improbable that MS-Windows is built upon code from Apple. Anyway, given the fact that both systems where developed most of the time in parallel and built upon the earlier work of others, the "clean room" requirement is not applicable. By the way, what about Apple? Did they use a clear room approach building their system? > Personally, using Windows is not as easy as using the Mac. I've never >programmed either, so I won't labor that point. It seems to have been beaten >to death already. Using Windows is not as easy as using the Mac (from a Mac users point of view). Using the Mac is not as easy as using Windows (from a Windows users point of view). Using the Mac is easier than using Windows, for somebody starting anew. This is partially because of technical differences (closed system vs. open system), partially because Windows has to work around the lack of certain surface features - the waste basket comes to mind - which Apple seems to own, partially because Apple invests more into what they call "Human Interface Design" and nothing into support for cheap hardware from various sources. Wolfgang Strobl #include <std.disclaimer.hpp>
strobl@gmdzi.gmd.de (Wolfgang Strobl) (03/17/91)
john@newave.UUCP (John A. Weeks III) writes: >... >> So why is it "successful"? [ discussion on windows 3.0 deleted ] >I was going to do a top ten list, but I am a bit grogy (1:00 AM), so just >a few random notes: >... A few random comments... >3. The "Windows 3.0" start-up screen lets others know that you are in >the "in crowd" without even having to use windows. Most people I know either suppress it or replace it with something different - a picture of the Macintosh desktop, for example, just to experience the only true look & feel for a few seconds. :-) Of course, this is highly illegal 8-(, so I cannot recommend it. >8. The programming interface changes with every Windows release, which >puts novices at the same level as power programmers. Wrong. Just to the contrary, the programming interface is quite stable for some years now, giving those people who started Windows programming early a clear advantage over newcomers jumping on the bandwagon :-). >10. Windows allows you to use that mouse you purchased 3 years ago in >a fit of Macintosh envy. There are few plain DOS programs which do not support a mouse, so just for using the mouse, a switch from plain DOS to Windows isn't necessary. And you don't have to use a mouse - or another pointing device - under Windows, if you are afraid of mice. Wolfgang Strobl #include <std.disclaimer.hpp>
krk@cs.purdue.EDU (Kevin Kuehl) (03/17/91)
In article <706@newave.UUCP> john@newave.mn.org (John A. Weeks III) writes: >companies involved. But a better question to ask is why did Xerox >fail when it had all of these bright people with all of these good ideas? From what I have heard, the management at Xerox did not have the forsight to realize what these talented people were doing. I guess their loss is our gain -- I don't think I could have afforded a Xerox Star as easily as my Mac. :-) -- Kevin Kuehl krk@cs.purdue.edu kuehlkr@mentor.cc.purude.edu
strobl@gmdzi.gmd.de (Wolfgang Strobl) (03/18/91)
francis@zaphod.uchicago.edu writes: >In article <4321@gmdzi.gmd.de> strobl@gmdzi.gmd.de (Wolfgang Strobl) writes: > What about this tiny, 512 pixel wide screen? Does that count as high-res > graphics? >Yes, it does. 72 pixels/inch. And that's universal (except for this >blasted new 64 pixel/inch CheapColor monitor they just came out with), >so developers know their screens will look the same wherever. Gee, then my watch has a high-res screen :-). Standardizing on a fixed resolution seems to be a good idea, if you have all the hardware under your control. Calling that fixed resolution "high-res" sounds a bit like marketing hype, because it suggests that other systems use mostly lower resolutions, and that this is inferior. If the lower resolution is the result of using a bigger screen, it isn't. Having the GUI tolerate variable resolution is a good thing, in my opinion, if it has to support a broad range of output devices. It is not simple to abstract from hardware characteristics like resolution, and the applications may have to cooperate in order to do it, but it can be done and it has been done. Wolfgang Strobl #include <std.disclaimer.hpp>
anders@verity.com (Anders Wallgren) (03/19/91)
In article <4321@gmdzi.gmd.de>, strobl@gmdzi (Wolfgang Strobl) writes: >cohill@vtserf.cc.vt.edu (Andrew M. Cohill) writes: > > >>I am sure Windows seems great to people who have had trouble with the >>simplisticly complicated DOS interface, but compared to any other >>windowing system (Mac, Motif, NeXT....) it is still just a toy. > >Funny. The Motif window manager is more or less a MS-Windows clone. > This is a bit of an overstatement on both your parts. The Motif window manager handles moving windows and sizing them - basically what it takes care of is the frame around the window. As such, it has many things in common with those features of MW-Windows. But comparisons beyond that aren't that easy to make. > >>Windows is a kluge. The Mac is not. One hell of a difference, in my >>opinion, and I still wonder why Apple should even care. As long as they >>keep pushing the Mac, Microsoft will never catch up. > >Windows suffers from its relation to the DOS file system, no doubt. And >the Macintosh has the advantage that everything, hardware and system software >is created by one company. > Both of these points are true, but miss the point. The Macintosh system software and _system_ hardware was created by one company. This same company create above hardware and software in such a way that expanding the system with third-party products is much easier on the Macintosh than any other platform I've ever seen. This doesn't mean that Microsoft will never catch up, however. In fact, they already have - they've shipped over 3 million copies of Windows 3.0 already, compared to about 2.5-2.75 for the Mac. Look at Europe, for example. You will find the installed base of Macintoshes amazingly small - in the tens of thousands, I believe. This presents a huge opportunity for Microsoft to establish a foothold. >>In one of the trade rags (back page of InfoWorld, I think), the point >>was made that Windows apps will never achieve the same level of >>functionality that Mac apps have because a Windows developer cannot >>count on a consistent set of hardware features--any Mac developer knows >>that every Mac user has high-res graphics, built-in networking, great >>sound output( and now sound input), and the same kind of processor >>(functionally, the 68000 differs little from the '030, unlike the '286 >>and the '386). > >What about this tiny, 512 pixel wide screen? Does that count as high-res >graphics? In my opinion, Macintosh developers have to take smaller >screens into account, compared with Windows developers. > Neither of the two statements above are very relevant, IMO. The key is that software shouldn't be written with hardware in mind, it should be written with users in mind. If the platform supports the plethora of screen sizes, bit depths and other system configurations that the Macintosh does, this makes the job for the programmer that much harder, but a job well done makes the job of the user much more pleasant. >The Intel series of processors are more suitable for a Windows or >Mac like OS than the Motorola processors, because they allow it >to move code segments on the fly, for example. They have parts >of the memory management built right into the hardware. > I'm not terribly familiar with the Intel series anymore, but I fail to see how the architecture of either chip makes it harder or easier to move code segments around. In case you didn't know it, the Macintosh has been able to swap code segments in and out from disk since day one - they had to, since 128K didn't let you do much. The 68030 has a built in MMU. >> Pity the poor DOS developer who actually has to worry if >>his or her Window app will run properly on a dinky '286 machine with >>an old mono display, no network, and no sound; *and* also work properly >>on a high end 386 with XGA color running Novell and a bunch of wierd >>high end hardware kluges to speed the software up. > >As a Windows developer I assure you that this is not much of a >problem. (And don't call us "DOS developers", PLEASE). > I can't agree with the original statement here. It seems to me that to properly write a Macintosh application, you have to worry just as much about processor speeds, display types and network configurations as a Windows of PM developer, if not more. If you don't, you either don't care or aren't writing serious applications. >>Windows and Mac--it's no contest, Apple...... > >Of course it's a contest, but an unusual one: either both parties >win, or both loose. You seem to prefer the latter case. > I think there's room for both without many problems. If you're a betting person, you hedge your bet and develop software for ALL of these platforms... Anders Wallgren Verity, Inc.
anders@verity.com (Anders Wallgren) (03/19/91)
In article <4323@gmdzi.gmd.de>, strobl@gmdzi (Wolfgang Strobl) writes: >doner@henri.ucsb.edu (John Doner) writes: > >>As for Windows, the original version, the one current when the Apple >>lawsuit was filed, was no more than a slavish copy. > >As far as I know, the Apple lawsuit wasn't filed against the original >version. Anyway, I would like to hear some arguments why you think that >Windows (either version) is a "slavish copy", in your opinion. Well, I don't know about "slavish copy," but here's the list of interface items still under contention (from MacWeek). I leave it to each of you to judge the merits of them: 1. Overlapping windows. 2. Windows appearing partly on and off screen. 3. Windows brought to top when selected. 4. Active top window. 5. Gray outline of windows dragged along with cursor. 6. Window redrawn in new position. 7. Newly exposed areas on screen displayed after window is moved. 8. Movable icons. 9. Icons displayed behind open windows. 10. Icon titles.
anders@verity.com (Anders Wallgren) (03/19/91)
In article <4329@gmdzi.gmd.de>, strobl@gmdzi (Wolfgang Strobl) writes: >francis@zaphod.uchicago.edu writes: > >>In article <4321@gmdzi.gmd.de> strobl@gmdzi.gmd.de (Wolfgang Strobl) writes: > >> What about this tiny, 512 pixel wide screen? Does that count as high-res >> graphics? > >>Yes, it does. 72 pixels/inch. And that's universal (except for this >>blasted new 64 pixel/inch CheapColor monitor they just came out with), >>so developers know their screens will look the same wherever. > This is wrong. Different mac monitors have different screen resolutions, and finding out a display device's resolution is supported, and even required for some applications, especially graphics and pre-press. > >Standardizing on a fixed resolution seems to be a good idea, if you have >all the hardware under your control. Calling that fixed resolution >"high-res" sounds a bit like marketing hype, because it suggests that >other systems use mostly lower resolutions, and that this is inferior. >If the lower resolution is the result of using a bigger screen, it isn't. > >Having the GUI tolerate variable resolution is a good thing, in my >opinion, if it has to support a broad range of output devices. It is not >simple to abstract from hardware characteristics like resolution, and >the applications may have to cooperate in order to do it, but it can be >done and it has been done. > I agree, and the Macintosh does it. anders
gillies@m.cs.uiuc.edu (Don Gillies) (03/19/91)
pfr654@csc.anu.edu.au writes: >In article <46873@nigel.ee.udel.edu>, johnston@oscar.ccm.udel.edu (Bill Johnston) writes: >> Repost of a message posted to IBM PC groups by Marc Ries: >> From: ries@venice.SEDD.TRW.COM (Marc Ries) >> Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms,comp.windows.misc,comp.windows.ms.programmer,comp.sys.ibm.pc.misc >> >> Apple Computer wins ruling against 'Windows' >GO APPLE!!! >I always was suspicious of Windows. I am hoping for a final ruling something >like that of the Polaroid vs Kodak suit, where the poor suckers who have >bought Windows to try to turn their miserable PCs into Macs are left out in >the cold :-) I suppse you're unhappy because you didn't pay enough for your macintosh, and you'd like to pay more. Listen up everyone. One of the reasons for the recent price drops throughout the macintosh line is Windows 3.0. Microsoft has prompted Apple to lower its prices, and yet, some bozos are slamming Microsoft for it. You should not bite the hand that feeds you. Don Gillies | University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign gillies@cs.uiuc.edu | Digital Computer Lab, 1304 W. Springfield, Urbana IL ---------------------+------------------------------------------------------ "UGH! WAR! ... What is it GOOD FOR? ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!" - the song "WAR" by Edwin Starr, circa 1971 --
jcav@quads.uchicago.edu (john cavallino) (03/20/91)
In article <1991Mar19.154536.31566@m.cs.uiuc.edu> gillies@m.cs.uiuc.edu (Don Gillies) writes: >pfr654@csc.anu.edu.au writes: > >>In article <46873@nigel.ee.udel.edu>, johnston@oscar.ccm.udel.edu (Bill Johnston) writes: >>> Apple Computer wins ruling against 'Windows' > >>GO APPLE!!! > >>I always was suspicious of Windows. I am hoping for a final ruling something >>like that of the Polaroid vs Kodak suit, where the poor suckers who have >>bought Windows to try to turn their miserable PCs into Macs are left out in >>the cold :-) > >I suppse you're unhappy because you didn't pay enough for your >macintosh, and you'd like to pay more. Listen up everyone. One of >the reasons for the recent price drops throughout the macintosh line >is Windows 3.0. Microsoft has prompted Apple to lower its prices, and >yet, some bozos are slamming Microsoft for it. You should not bite >the hand that feeds you. ^^^ ^^^^ ^^^^ ^^^^^ ^^^ ????!!!! Apple lowered its prices and introduced less costly models because it was LOSING MARKET SHARE. Period. This slide began long before Windows 3 was released. It also appears to have been reversed. I've read recent statements from industry analysts along the lines of "...astonishing rebound...", "...complete turnaround...", etc., concerning Apple's recent sales. I think they were +50% in fourth quarter '90. -- John Cavallino | EMail: jcav@midway.uchicago.edu University of Chicago Hospitals | USMail: 5841 S. Maryland Ave, Box 145 Office of Facilities Management | Chicago, IL 60637 "Opinions, my boy. Just opinions" | Telephone: 312-702-6900
dth@reef.cis.ufl.edu (David Hightower) (03/20/91)
In article <1991Mar19.154536.31566@m.cs.uiuc.edu> gillies@m.cs.uiuc.edu (Don Gillies) writes: >I suppse you're unhappy because you didn't pay enough for your >macintosh, and you'd like to pay more. Listen up everyone. One of >the reasons for the recent price drops throughout the macintosh line >is Windows 3.0. Microsoft has prompted Apple to lower its prices, and >yet, some bozos are slamming Microsoft for it. You should not bite >the hand that feeds you. > >Don Gillies | University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign >gillies@cs.uiuc.edu | Digital Computer Lab, 1304 W. Springfield, Urbana IL Actually, Apple has had low-cost Macs in development for quite some time now.....LONG before Win3 came out. The problem with releasing them goes to one of the basic tenets of the Macintosh--that of quality control. Granted, Macs have had their problems, but not NEAR as much as on the PC side. This has been reflected in several previous posts. Microsoft hasn't fed me anything; It seems that we have been feeding Bill Gates too much rich food, and he has decided that he likes it, and wants even more. >"UGH! WAR! ... What is it GOOD FOR? ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!" > - the song "WAR" by Edwin Starr, circa 1971 Ask the Kuwaitis. _________________________________________________________________________ Dave Hightower | opinion? I'm allowed to have an opinion? dth@cis.ufl.edu | well, if I DID have one, it'd be mine, all mine! -------------------------------------------------------------------------- LAW OF COMBAT #1: Incoming fire has the right of way #2: If the enemy's in range, so are you #3: Never share a foxhole with anyone braver than you #4: Never forget that you weapon is made by the lowest bidder
jas@ISI.EDU (Jeff Sullivan) (03/20/91)
In article <706@newave.UUCP> john@newave.UUCP (John A. Weeks III) writes: >In article <1991Mar15.224201.2622@cpsc.ucalgary.ca> wieser@fsd.cpsc.ucalgary.ca (Bernhard Wieser) writes: >> You refer to the wonderful LISP machine, the Xerox Star, but how can you >> 'lift' (implied steal) anything when you have hired some of the people who >> worked on the project? > >Most high-tech companies require employees to sign a confidentiality >agreement that prohibits an employee to release any company information >during or after employment. Some companies go so far as to make claims >on any "invention" that a former employee creates for a period of time >after employment (1 to 5 years). But, research institutions can't stop you from ever working in your field after you leave them. That was the point being made. Nor can they demand that you abandon all of the things you have learned while working there, even if the specific research is owned (in whole or part) by the institution, rather than the researcher. >Even if you don't have an explicit agreement, there are trade secret >laws (in the USA, at least). For example, a person might expect to be >sued if they release the client list of a former employeer to a competitor. But, Xerox was not releasing a consumer product. Nor did they have any real plans to. They had tried to market their windowing computer and it had not gone over very well. If Apple tried to market the same thing, it would have flopped similarly. -- -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Jeffrey A. Sullivan | Senior Systems Programmer jas@venera.isi.edu | Information Sciences Institute jas@isi.edu | University of Southern California
rubinoff@linc.cis.upenn.edu (Robert Rubinoff) (03/20/91)
In article <1991Mar19.064322.12208@verity.com> anders@verity.com (Anders Wallgren) writes: > This doesn't >mean that Microsoft will never catch up, however. In fact, they >already have - they've shipped over 3 million copies of Windows 3.0 >already, compared to about 2.5-2.75 for the Mac. Look at Europe, for >example. Yes, but how many of these copies were given away for free and/or sit on the shelf unused? The question isn't how many copies of Windows have been shipped; it's how many actually get used. Robert
wieser@fsd.cpsc.ucalgary.ca (Bernhard Wieser) (03/20/91)
Well Don, I don't know if I can agree with the "bite the hand" argument. If you compare apples and ibms, you might see something interesting. Let's speculate! Clones and compatibles damaged ibms PC sales big time. So ibm has less money/interest in PC r&d. We get the same old ibm product for years in a new package. But, Apple pretty much controls the rights to its property. It has more money to spend in r&d. It listens to the long term gripes of the 12k user, and develops some great machines (like the Classic). I don't believe Windows makes an impact on Mac. In fact, I think people may view Windows and OSx as a poor attempts to catch up to modern user's needs, while Apple is cautiously proceeding into the future. And then... there's NeXT. -- ( Bernie Wieser, wieser@cpsc.ucalgary.ca, BSWieser@uncamult.BITNET ) ( 4rth Year Dbl.Mgr Cpsc Clhc University of Calgary | ) ( S/H Developer Dept. of Psychology, " " " \|/ ) ( Octavian Micro Development Group --- o --- )
anders@verity.com (Anders Wallgren) (03/20/91)
In article <39397@netnews.upenn.edu>, rubinoff@linc (Robert Rubinoff) writes: >In article <1991Mar19.064322.12208@verity.com> anders@verity.com (Anders Wallgren) writes: >> This doesn't >>mean that Microsoft will never catch up, however. In fact, they >>already have - they've shipped over 3 million copies of Windows 3.0 >>already, compared to about 2.5-2.75 for the Mac. Look at Europe, for >>example. > >Yes, but how many of these copies were given away for free and/or sit on the >shelf unused? The question isn't how many copies of Windows have been shipped; >it's how many actually get used. > > That's a valid point, but then, how many copies of the MacOS have been given away for free? They come with the hardware, you know. Of course, they're hardly sitting on people shelves, unless the Macs themselves are sitting right next to them... I know, not a stunning rebuttal, but then your point is only semi-valid, since, no matter how they got there, or how many people leave the package unopened, the fact is that Windows have made a large entrace in the marketplace, and people ARE clamoring for Windows applications, especially since Windows seems to be a fairly popular migration path for the millions of corporate users who have DOS machines on their desks. Don't get me wrong - I program Macintoshes for a living, but I'm trying not to get myopic enough to think that my (highly positive) opinion of the Macintosh has anything to do with the purchasing decisions of major corporate buyers...as I said before: if you want to serve the market, program for all popular interfaces. Anders Wallgren Verity, Inc.
umh@vax5.cit.cornell.edu (03/20/91)
This message is empty.
amanda@visix.com (Amanda Walker) (03/20/91)
In article <17217@venera.isi.edu> jas@ISI.EDU (Jeff Sullivan) writes:
[Xerox] had tried to market their windowing computer and it had not
gone over very well.
If Apple tried to market the same thing, it would have flopped similarly.
They did, and it did--remember the LISA?
Before MacWorks, that is...
--
Amanda Walker amanda@visix.com
Visix Software Inc. ...!uunet!visix!amanda
--
"I was born in Iowa--I just *work* in outer space" --Star Trek IVcirby@vaxb.acs.unt.edu (((((C.Irby))))) (03/20/91)
In article <1991Mar19.165550.6081@midway.uchicago.edu>, jcav@quads.uchicago.edu (john cavallino) writes: > > Apple lowered its prices and introduced less costly models because it was > LOSING MARKET SHARE. Period. This slide began long before Windows 3 was > released. It also appears to have been reversed. I've read recent > statements from industry analysts along the lines of "...astonishing > rebound...", "...complete turnaround...", etc., concerning Apple's recent > sales. I think they were +50% in fourth quarter '90. More than that- Apple's stock price has DOUBLED in the last few months. Unit sales are up about 50%, as you said, and many of the big name stock gurus are upgrading Apple's rating. I wish I'd had the money to buy stock back in September like I wanted. ;-) -- |////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////| |\\\\\\| C Irby cirby@untvax cirby@vaxa.acs.unt.edu |\\\\\\| |//////| He frowns thoughtfully. "I wonder why the |//////| |\\\\\\| Fascists always have the best uniforms." |\\\\\\| |////////////////////////-Spy Magazine-//////////////////////////|
dave@PRC.Unisys.COM (David Lee Matuszek) (03/21/91)
In article <4326@gmdzi.gmd.de> strobl@gmdzi.gmd.de (Wolfgang Strobl) writes: >john@newave.UUCP (John A. Weeks III) writes: >There are few plain DOS programs which do not support a mouse, Oh? We had a DOS user over to our house a couple of weeks ago, and he was looking at a program on our Mac. One of his comments way, "And it's got full mouse support, too!" Well, I was kinda taken aback--you have to understand, "full mouse support" isn't something I've ever really thought about before.... Anyway, I've decided the appropriate comeback is "Yes, and full screen support, too!" Since I didn't think of it at the time, I'll just pass it along, and maybe someday one of you can use it.... :-) -- Dave Matuszek (dave@prc.unisys.com) I don't speak for my employer. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------- | When I was young, my family bought a color TV. Our neigbors, who | | were poorer, had only a black-and-white set. They bought a piece of | | cellophane, red on top, yellow in the middle, and blue on the bottom, | | and taped it over their screen, so they could claim that they had a | | color TV, too. | | Now there's Windows 3.0. | -------------------------------------------------------------------------
shwake@raysnec.UUCP (Ray Shwake) (03/22/91)
cirby@vaxb.acs.unt.edu (((((C.Irby))))) writes: >More than that- Apple's stock price has DOUBLED in the last few months. Let's not lose the context of the stock price rise. As Gantz points out in a recent InfoWorld column, quite a number of high-tech companies have seen their share price rise, including AST, Compaq, *and* Microsoft. These advances began with the market's general advance, which itself began the day after the war began. Now, what conclusions do you draw from *that*? Let's also be careful how we respond to the court's ruling. One article (InfoWorld) headlines "Court Rules Apple's Copyrights are Valid", while an article in PC Week specifically states the court did *not* rule on the validity of Apple's copyrights. Some of us look forward to a proper analysis by someone who has actually *read* the ruling and understands its implications. ----------- uunet!media!ka3ovk!raysnec!shwake shwake@rsxtech
strobl@gmdzi.gmd.de (Wolfgang Strobl) (03/27/91)
anders@verity.com (Anders Wallgren) writes: >In article <4323@gmdzi.gmd.de>, strobl@gmdzi (Wolfgang Strobl) writes: >>doner@henri.ucsb.edu (John Doner) writes: >> >>>As for Windows, the original version, the one current when the Apple >>>lawsuit was filed, was no more than a slavish copy. >> >>As far as I know, the Apple lawsuit wasn't filed against the original >>version. Anyway, I would like to hear some arguments why you think that >>Windows (either version) is a "slavish copy", in your opinion. >Well, I don't know about "slavish copy," but here's the list of >interface items still under contention (from MacWeek). I leave it to >each of you to judge the merits of them: >1. Overlapping windows. What about 1.a Rectangular windows and 1.b square pixels ? Seriously, there are not that much variants here: windows either are overlapping, or they aren't. They are an obvious device if there is more information to present than there is space on the terminal. Pop-up, overlapping windows where in use on character based, memory mapped micro computer screens long before this lawsuit. My Borland SIDEKICK manual (1. edition, march '85) contains a paragraph describing its use of windows: "Sidekick makes full use of windows: each function uses its own separate window, and many windows may be present on the screen at the same time. When a window opens, it will cover some other information, but everything is still present underneath it: [picture of overlapping windows omitted] Each window may be easily moved around on the screen to uncover information that you need to see on the original screen or in other windows. The size of the notepad window may even be varied, both horizontally and vertically - it can take up the whole screen, or just part of a line." My 1981 edition of "Newman/Sproull: Principles of Interactive Computer Graphics" contains a similar paragraph in the chapter on interactive raster graphics. Using overlapping windows was a concept well known before the Macintosh was created, so there is no reason to suspect that somebody had to copy it from there, in order to use it. >2. Windows appearing partly on and off screen. The above mentioned book has a picture of a computer with overlapping windows, some of them clipped by the border of the screen. >3. Windows brought to top when selected. This is a natural consequence of overlapping windows and shared by nearly every other system on the market. Only one window can/should react to the keystrokes of the user, usually by echoing them. It seems natural to bring that window to top. >4. Active top window. How do you define "active"? >5. Gray outline of windows dragged along with cursor. The fact that you see a gray outline is a sideeffect of the technique to xor a dotted rectangle of the same size as the window with the screen. Using the boolean xor operation is a well know technique to modify something without information loss - so that it is possible to restore to the state before the operation, and was not invented with the Macintosh. Its use in contemporary GUIs is mainly caused by lack of memory and/or cpu cycles. >6. Window redrawn in new position. Where else? >7. Newly exposed areas on screen displayed after window is moved. What else? Nobody whould display some random picture there. All this is an attempt to say "overlapping windows" with slightly different wording, to impress somebody who doesn't know better. >8. Movable icons. What is the difference between a moveable window and a moveable icon? Its size? >9. Icons displayed behind open windows. Sorry, I'm lost here. Icons behind open windows (what's an open window?) are hidden, not displayed. >10. Icon titles. This may be a valid point. Perhaps Apple is able to force Microsoft to write icon titles above their icons, and right justified, at least in the program manager, who knows. Icons representing running applications have no counterpart in the Mac OS, so Microsoft should be able to continue the use of the current layout (below, centered), there. ;-) Wolfgang Strobl #include <std.disclaimer.hpp> (nonstd disclaimer: I'm no lawyer, and am glad about that.)
strobl@gmdzi.gmd.de (Wolfgang Strobl) (03/27/91)
anders@verity.com (Anders Wallgren) writes: >In article <4329@gmdzi.gmd.de>, strobl@gmdzi (Wolfgang Strobl) writes: ... >> >>Having the GUI tolerate variable resolution is a good thing, in my >>opinion, if it has to support a broad range of output devices. It is not >>simple to abstract from hardware characteristics like resolution, and >>the applications may have to cooperate in order to do it, but it can be >>done and it has been done. >> >I agree, and the Macintosh does it. I'm glad about that, and about the fact that you corrected the many statements which said something different. Wolfgang Strobl #include <std.disclaimer.hpp>
price@uclapp.physics.ucla.edu (John Price) (03/27/91)
In article <1991Mar19.064748.12275@verity.com>, anders@verity.com (Anders Wallgren) writes: >Well, I don't know about "slavish copy," but here's the list of >interface items still under contention (from MacWeek). I leave it to >each of you to judge the merits of them: >1. Overlapping windows. >2. Windows appearing partly on and off screen. >3. Windows brought to top when selected. >4. Active top window. >5. Gray outline of windows dragged along with cursor. >6. Window redrawn in new position. >7. Newly exposed areas on screen displayed after window is moved. >8. Movable icons. >9. Icons displayed behind open windows. >10. Icon titles. Just for drill, DECWindows (on VAX systems) has every single one of these features (if that's what you'd call them). I'm sure someone else could correct me on this, but DECWindows is basically a copy of the X-11 system, tailored for DEC. I guess Digital's in trouble pretty soon now, as well... :) --------------------------------------------------------------------------- John Price | Internet: price@uclapp.physics.ucla.edu 5-145 Knudsen Hall | BITNET: price@uclaph UCLA Dept. of Physics | SPAN: uclapp::price Los Angeles, CA 90024-1547 | YellNet: 213-825-2259 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Where there is no solution, there is no problem.
umh@vax5.cit.cornell.edu (03/29/91)
In article <4387@gmdzi.gmd.de>, strobl@gmdzi.gmd.de (Wolfgang Strobl) writes: > anders@verity.com (Anders Wallgren) writes: > >>In article <4323@gmdzi.gmd.de>, strobl@gmdzi (Wolfgang Strobl) writes: >>>doner@henri.ucsb.edu (John Doner) writes: >>> >>>>As for Windows, the original version, the one current when the Apple >>>>lawsuit was filed, was no more than a slavish copy. >>> >>>As far as I know, the Apple lawsuit wasn't filed against the original >>>version. Anyway, I would like to hear some arguments why you think that >>>Windows (either version) is a "slavish copy", in your opinion. Long list of Apple lawsuit issues criticized is omitted. > Wolfgang Strobl > #include <std.disclaimer.hpp> > (nonstd disclaimer: I'm no lawyer, and am glad about that.) There are two points here. The first is that for this part of the suit, Apple is not suing for Look and Feel. It is suing for breach of contract, in that MS and Apple made a contract regarding Windows many years ago which held Apple's lawyers off MS. Apple feel that this contract has been breached by MS, and of course that's something easier to sue for- more clearcut- than a Look an Fell suit. Secondly, as regards whether these are the only ways of creating a GUI- that's not as clearcut as Mr Strobl feels. There are many ways to implement a GUI that differ substantially from the Mac- far more so than Windows does. One example is NeXTStep, which looks nothing like the Mac- no MenuBar moved to the window etc. A second example is different incantations of Motif. For example one can set up Motif so that the active window- the one receiving keystrokes- does NOT automatically come to the top- you can tell it's active by the change of border color. This would probably be of no use of my dinky 512x384 Mac screen, but is wonderful on a 1280x1024 workstation screen with 8 active processes when you don't want the window you're happy to type a few lines in to come to the top. A second thing you can do in motif is to have the activeness of a window governed not by clicking in the window, but simply by having the mouse pointer in that window. Once you get used to that, it seems much faster than having to click a window to activate it- another different way of doing things. Maynard Handley
strobl@gmdzi.gmd.de (Wolfgang Strobl) (03/30/91)
umh@vax5.cit.cornell.edu writes: ... >Secondly, as regards whether these are the only ways of creating a GUI- that's >not as clearcut as Mr Strobl feels. There are many ways to implement a GUI that >differ substantially from the Mac- far more so than Windows does. One example >is NeXTStep, which looks nothing like the Mac- no MenuBar moved to the window >etc. A second example is different incantations of Motif. For example one can >set up Motif so that the active window- the one receiving keystrokes- does NOT >automatically come to the top- you can tell it's active by the change of border >color. This would probably be of no use of my dinky 512x384 Mac screen, but is >wonderful on a 1280x1024 workstation screen with 8 active processes when you >don't want the window you're happy to type a few lines in to come to the top. A >second thing you can do in motif is to have the activeness of a window governed >not by clicking in the window, but simply by having the mouse pointer in that >window. Once you get used to that, it seems much faster than having to click a >window to activate it- another different way of doing things. I don't doubt that there are many ways to implement a GUI which differ more from the Mac than Windows does. What I disagree with is the conclusion that one GUI is the copy of the other. Beside the fact that both systems have common roots, much what can be viewed as a similarity comes from the fact that both systems operate on quite similar hardware (similar constraints for storage, cpu power, video bandwith, size and speed of secondary storage, ...). Under these circumstances, they are as different as they can be, in my opinion. Using your own example: of course it seems to be quite usefull not to synchronize keyboard focus and window order, if your workstation with its mega-pel display has to refresh its window over the network, and if multiple shells (i.e. text mode applications) in slightly overlapping windows is something to support. On the other hand, if screen space is rare and refresh is fast, the usefullness of synchronization is obvious. Customizing MS-Windows so that activating a window is done by moving the mouse pointer over that window - instead of clicking into it - is quite simple. There is a little shareware utility (raise, by Robert Nee), which implements this feature. I don't use it, because I'm satisfied with the default behaviour, but tried it, and it works well. I'm sure that there are similar customization possibilites on the Mac. Wolfgang Strobl #include <std.disclaimer.hpp>