rjc@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Ray Cromwell) (03/20/91)
I saw this in comp.sys.mac.system: ------included text---- 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. ----end included text----- Every single one of those concepts listed are TOTALLY and completely obvious. Take a person who doesn't know anything about Apple's GUI, ask him to design a windowing system that maximizes screen real estate and he will come up with overlapping windows. None of Apple's claims listed are particulary innovative. They are obvious solutions to limited screen real estate, cpu speed, and ram. One good thing is that Apple's claims seem to conflict with AT&T's "patent" on overlapping windows using backing store. Perhaps AT&T will get pulled into the battle. -- /~\_______________________________________________________________________/~\ |n| rjc@albert.ai.mit.edu Amiga, the computer for the creative mind. |n| |~| .-. .-. |~| |_|________________________________| |_| |________________________________|_|
jbickers@templar.actrix.gen.nz (John Bickers) (03/20/91)
Quoted from <1991Mar19.204622.4797@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu> by rjc@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Ray Cromwell): > One good thing is that Apple's claims seem to conflict with > AT&T's "patent" on overlapping windows using backing store. Perhaps > AT&T will get pulled into the battle. It's possible that this is the reason companies like AT&T (and Xerox, a while back) are bringing up patent stuff. I recall a reasonable sounding theory a while back that Xerox only hassled Apple about GUI issues because they had some $$ deal in the works, and needed to clarify the issue to calm their customers. Shame programmer's haven't set about putting lawyers out of work. > |n| rjc@albert.ai.mit.edu Amiga, the computer for the creative mind. |n| -- *** John Bickers, TAP, NZAmigaUG. jbickers@templar.actrix.gen.nz *** *** "Patterns multiplying, re-direct our view" - Devo. ***
jph@ais.org (Joseph Hillenburg) (03/20/91)
In article <1991Mar19.204622.4797@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu> rjc@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Ray Cromwell) writes: >I saw this in comp.sys.mac.system: > >------included text---- >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. *smirk* A Sun idea... >2. Windows appearing partly on and off screen. This isn't really something that is important, but still shouldn't be worth fighting over. >3. Windows brought to top when selected. Another Sun idea >4. Active top window. Yet another Sun idea... >5. Gray outline of windows dragged along with cursor. How does Apple expect us to see what we're dragging? A trivial get-around for Commodore would be to make it so the entire window moved with the mouse. (which wouldn't be difficult on an Amiga; NeXT did it, so I don't see any reason why the Amiga can't...) >6. Window redrawn in new position. Yet another idea which would make the GUI useless... >7. Newly exposed areas on screen displayed after window is moved. Sheesh...what a bunch of morons...and the area is supposed to be *left blank*? >8. Movable icons. Sun idea... >9. Icons displayed behind open windows. Sun idea... >10. Icon titles. And we're supposed to use the images to determine what it's for? Sure, some images are obvious, but this is a GUI must. IMO, Apple is hypocrites. The real innovators are C=, NeXT, Sun, and XEROX. I don't think Apple will ever sue NeXT and Sun since they're workstation manufacturers, and they'll never seriously endanger the Mac's market. However, Commodore may be sued, I'm afraid. >-- >/~\_______________________________________________________________________/~\ >|n| rjc@albert.ai.mit.edu Amiga, the computer for the creative mind. |n| >|~| .-. .-. |~| >|_|________________________________| |_| |________________________________|_| -- // Joseph Hillenburg/Blackwinter, Secretary, Bloomington Amiga Users Group \X/ jph@valnet.UUCP jph@irie.ais.org jph@wookumz.ai.mit.edu "Project: Desert Storm is also known as ``The Mother of All Ass-Kickings.''"
dewolfe@ug.cs.dal.ca (Anarchy for Peace) (03/20/91)
In article <9HZ-_4+@irie.ais.org> jph@ais.org (Joseph Hillenburg) writes: >In article <1991Mar19.204622.4797@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu> rjc@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Ray Cromwell) writes: >>I saw this in comp.sys.mac.system: >> >>------included text---- >>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. > >*smirk* A Sun idea... > >>2. Windows appearing partly on and off screen. > >This isn't really something that is important, but still shouldn't be worth >fighting over. > >>3. Windows brought to top when selected. > >Another Sun idea > >>4. Active top window. > >Yet another Sun idea... > >>5. Gray outline of windows dragged along with cursor. > >How does Apple expect us to see what we're dragging? A trivial get-around for >Commodore would be to make it so the entire window moved with the mouse. (which >wouldn't be difficult on an Amiga; NeXT did it, so I don't see any reason why >the Amiga can't...) > >>6. Window redrawn in new position. > >Yet another idea which would make the GUI useless... > >>7. Newly exposed areas on screen displayed after window is moved. > >Sheesh...what a bunch of morons...and the area is supposed to be *left blank*? > >>8. Movable icons. > >Sun idea... > >>9. Icons displayed behind open windows. > >Sun idea... > >>10. Icon titles. > >And we're supposed to use the images to determine what it's for? Sure, some >images are obvious, but this is a GUI must. > >IMO, Apple is hypocrites. The real innovators are C=, NeXT, Sun, and XEROX. > >I don't think Apple will ever sue NeXT and Sun since they're workstation >manufacturers, and they'll never seriously endanger the Mac's market. However, >Commodore may be sued, I'm afraid. > I can't really see this happening for a number of reasons... A) Commodore (whether we like it or not) is not that much competition for Apple. B) Quote from an old issue old BYTE (some time last year, about GUI's) "Intuition is quite arguably the father of Multifinder" I'm sure Ape Pull would get the looky feelies about the other stuff, but I could see Commodore counter-sueing and Apple losing Multifinder. I can see it now, Commodore claiming "Multiple Programs on same display" and raising a major shit storm with Xerox, SGI and SUN. :-) C) (the grey outline thing) Commodore can get around this because theirs is complemented colours. D) As for 5,6,7 I don't see how Apple can claim this as it's the application's headache (under ToolBox) to do all this. The GUI manager does none of this for you, whereas every other window server (Intuition for example, and SGI NeWS) does this for you and tells you about it. Anyway, that's what I think. >>-- >>/~\_______________________________________________________________________/~\ >>|n| rjc@albert.ai.mit.edu Amiga, the computer for the creative mind. |n| >>|~| .-. .-. |~| >>|_|________________________________| |_| |________________________________|_| > > >-- > // Joseph Hillenburg/Blackwinter, Secretary, Bloomington Amiga Users Group > \X/ jph@valnet.UUCP jph@irie.ais.org jph@wookumz.ai.mit.edu > "Project: Desert Storm is also known as ``The Mother of All Ass-Kickings.''" -- Colin DeWolfe dewolfe@ug.cs.dal.ca
peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) (03/21/91)
In article <1991Mar19.204622.4797@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu> rjc@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Ray Cromwell) 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. Predates Mac. > 2. Windows appearing partly on and off screen. Predates Mac. > 3. Windows brought to top when selected. That's a bug, not a feature. > 4. Active top window. That's a bug, not a feature. > 5. Gray outline of windows dragged along with cursor. But the Mac doesn't do that! It uses a moving dashed line. > 6. Window redrawn in new position. Predates Mac. > 7. Newly exposed areas on screen displayed after window is moved. Predates Mac. > 8. Movable icons. Predates Mac. > 9. Icons displayed behind open windows. Predates Mac. > 10. Icon titles. Predates Mac. > Every single one of those concepts listed are TOTALLY and completely > obvious. No, the business about popping a window to the top and activating it when you click on it is a genuine Apple innovation. The rest existed in the Star. And it's a bug, not a feature, at that! -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' <peter@sugar.hackercorp.com>.
jpc@fct.unl.pt (Jose Pina Coelho) (03/22/91)
In article <1991Mar20.064138.4645@cs.dal.ca> dewolfe@ug.cs.dal.ca (Anarchy for Peace) writes: In article <9HZ-_4+@irie.ais.org> jph@ais.org (Joseph Hillenburg) writes: >In article <1991Mar19.204622.4797@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu> rjc@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Ray Cromwell) writes: >>I saw this in comp.sys.mac.system: >> [... A bit of quote cutting never hurt anybody ...] I can't really see this happening for a number of reasons... A) Commodore (whether we like it or not) is not that much competition for Apple. If Apple doesn't become innovative *QUICK* Commodore will become competition and will eat it alive. B) Quote from an old issue old BYTE (some time last year, about GUI's) "Intuition is quite arguably the father of Multifinder" I'm sure Ape Pull would get the looky feelies about the other stuff, but I could see Commodore counter-sueing and Apple losing Multifinder. I can see it now, Commodore claiming "Multiple Programs on same display" and raising a major shit storm with Xerox, SGI and SUN. :-) Surely you mean ``The Mother of All ShitStorms'' C) (the grey outline thing) Commodore can get around this because theirs is complemented colours. Of course the guys that ``invented'' Xor cursors might call it a cursor and sue, you where right, smells like a ShitStorm rising. D) As for 5,6,7 I don't see how Apple can claim this as it's the application's headache (under ToolBox) to do all this. The GUI manager does none of this for you, whereas every other window server (Intuition for example, and SGI NeWS) does this for you and tells you about it. Anyway, that's what I think. I think you think quite clear. -- Jose Pedro T. Pina Coelho | BITNET/Internet: jpc@fct.unl.pt Rua Jau N 1, 2 Dto | UUCP: ...!mcsun!unl!jpc 1300 Lisboa, PORTUGAL | Home phone: (+351) (1) 640767 - If all men were brothers, would you let one marry your sister ?