Shattering Mac Advocate GUI Myths
Edwin
OS. It's a ridiculous notion when one stops to consider that Mac OS
was not a shell riding on top of DOS as Windows was. It becomes even
sillier when one takes into account that the two operating systems
were written for different hardware, and so it would have been
impossible to make a direct copy.
A favorite assertion of Maccies is that "we'd all be using DOS now if
it weren't for Apple."
Here's a site that throws cold water on that nonsense:
http://members.fortunecity.com/pcmuseum/windows.htm
"Microsoft first began development of the Interface Manager
(subsequently renamed Microsoft Windows) in September 1981."
Whoa! That's a long time before the Mac came out.
"Although the first prototypes used Multiplan and Word-like menus at
the bottom of the screen, the interface was changed in 1982 to use
pull-down menus and dialogs, as used on the Xerox Star. "
"As used on the Xerox Star?" I guess Maccies must think only Apple
has the 'right' to imitate Xerox.
"Microsoft finally announced Windows in November 1983, with pressure
from just-released VisiOn and impending TopView."
Oh no! The most cherished Mac advocate myth of all has been smashed
to smithereens! The first GUI for personal computers wasn't Mac OS at
all. It was VisiOn for the PC!
"The first GUI for the PC!"
"VisiOn: a graphical environment promoted by VisiCorp, the publishers
of the VisiCalc spreadsheet. "
"VisiCorp shows the VisiOn graphical user interface at the Fall 1982
Comdex."
A year after Microsoft started their Windows project.
"Bill Gates sits through three back-to-back demonstrations.
He flies in other Microsoft officials to watch, then hightails it back
to Washington to work on plans for his own graphical overlay for DOS."
VisiOn was shown in the Fall of 1982, and TopView was impending from
IBM in 1983. That means lots of people were hard at work on GUI
systems for years before Apple introduced the Mac in 1984.
VisiOn makes far more sense as the inspiration for Windows, because it
too was a DOS shell and it to ran on PC hardware. Facts ignored by
Maccies because those give none of the credit to Apple Computer, Inc.
Notice also that Bill Gates got nothing from VisiOn that the general
public did not, but that won't stop Maccies of accusing him of theft.
Why do Maccies claim that Windows is copied from the Mac? Because
they're ignorant of all the other GUI systems that were under
development for the PC, and because Windows was released a year after
the Mac was:
"Windows was finally released in November of 1985, a full two years
after it had been announced. "
Besides VisiOn, shown in 1982 and released in 1983, we have:
TopView
http://members.fortunecity.com/pcmuseum/topview.htm
"The first of the multitasking, windowing systems from big-name IBM
Corp. Released in early 1985
List price: $149.00 US
Requires: 256K RAM, 512K recommended
1 floppy drive and 1 fixed disk, or 2 double sided floppy drives.
DOS 2.0 or higher."
GEM
http://members.fortunecity.com/pcmuseum/gem.htm
DESQ
http://members.fortunecity.com/pcmuseum/desq.htm
GEOS/Geosworks Ensamble
http://members.fortunecity.com/pcmuseum/geos.htm
OS/2
http://members.fortunecity.com/pcmuseum/os2.htm
Deskmate
http://members.fortunecity.com/pcmuseum/deskmate.htm
Look at the above references and realize we would still have GUI
driven operating systems even if there never was a Mac or an Apple
Computer, Inc. We would have had that even if there had been no
Microsoft.
Edwin
----
In the world of mammals there are two mountain peaks,
one is Mount Homo Sapiens and the other is Mount Cetacea.
-- Professor Teizo Ogawa
George Graves
Edwin <ze...@aiur.org> wrote:
> Mac advocates have long claimed that Windows was copied from the Mac
> OS. It's a ridiculous notion when one stops to consider that Mac OS
> was not a shell riding on top of DOS as Windows was. It becomes even
> sillier when one takes into account that the two operating systems
> were written for different hardware, and so it would have been
> impossible to make a direct copy.
C'mon Edwin, my friend, this is a specious argument on several fronts:
(1) The fact that Windows was originally a GUI shell riding atop DOS
(much of the luggage of which, it still retains, unfortunately) is
irrelevant. The shell copied features popularized in the Mac such as the
mouse and icons to represent files.
(2) Today, there are a number X-Windowing GUI shells which work over
Linux and other forms of Unix. These shells are unabashed copies of
Windows. Yet Windows is no longer a DOS shell, but a full GUI featured
OS. Does then mean that the virtual copy of Windows graphical interface,
is not a copy because X-Windows is a shell?
(3) The hardware is also irrelevant. The aforementioned Unix with its
X-Windowing and Windows-like GUI shell is totally architecture portable
and will run equally on x86 architecture, PPC architecture, DEC Alpha,
SUN, IBM, and a number of other platforms, all of which, I believe, have
different hardware configurations. These shells *LOOK* like Windows 98
on all of them.
> A favorite assertion of Maccies is that "we'd all be using DOS now if
> it weren't for Apple."
While I won't go that far (Its like saying that we wouldn't have the
electric light or the phonograph were it not for Edison, The telephone
were it not for Bell, and the Airplane were not for the Wrights. Good
ideas appear when the time is right for them as is witnessed by the fact
that at least two other people had the idea for the telephone at
preceisly the same time as Bell), I will say that Apple took the first
step to popularize the concept and to show that a GUI took the computer
to a whole new level of accessibility. If Apple hadn't done it, surely
someone else would have, but the point is Apple DID do it first in a
commercial product and it made Bill gates sit up and take serious
notice.
> Here's a site that throws cold water on that nonsense:
>
> http://members.fortunecity.com/pcmuseum/windows.htm
>
> "Microsoft first began development of the Interface Manager
> (subsequently renamed Microsoft Windows) in September 1981."
Yes they did. Unfortunately, it was AFTER Apple began work on the Lisa.
Since Gates was shown early Lisa development when he visited Apple in
1980 (something your "history" site leaves out), that's clearly where he
got the idea. And to call Windows 1.0 a GUI, is really stretching
things. The Xerox PARC's Star system was more of a GUI than Windows 1.0,
and that's not saying very much.
Also, the Lisa shipped before Windows 1.0 as your site clearly points
out. I wonder where the author of that site got the screen shots of
Win1.0? Maybe he was the guy who bought the one copy that MS actually
sold. ;-)
>
> Whoa! That's a long time before the Mac came out.
But Windows 1.0 didn't ship until 1983, AFTER the Lisa shipped and about
the same time as the Mac was debuted.
> "Although the first prototypes used Multiplan and Word-like menus at
> the bottom of the screen, the interface was changed in 1982 to use
> pull-down menus and dialogs, as used on the Xerox Star. "
Wishful thinking. I worked at PARC in the early '80's (as I have
nmebtioned before) and got to use Star. Win1.0 might have had pull-down
menus and dialogs, but they weren't like Star.
>
> "As used on the Xerox Star?" I guess Maccies must think only Apple
> has the 'right' to imitate Xerox.
A little knowledge seems to truly be a dangerous thing, Edwin. Its more
like Gates was copying the Apple Lisa who imitated (to a certain extent)
Star.
> "Microsoft finally announced Windows in November 1983, with pressure
> from just-released VisiOn and impending TopView."
> Oh no! The most cherished Mac advocate myth of all has been smashed
> to smithereens! The first GUI for personal computers wasn't Mac OS at
> all. It was VisiOn for the PC!
No, it wasn't it was the Apple Lisa.
>
> "The first GUI for the PC!"
>
> "VisiOn: a graphical environment promoted by VisiCorp, the publishers
> of the VisiCalc spreadsheet. "
>
> "VisiCorp shows the VisiOn graphical user interface at the Fall 1982
> Comdex."
>
> A year after Microsoft started their Windows project.
>
> "Bill Gates sits through three back-to-back demonstrations.
> He flies in other Microsoft officials to watch, then hightails it back
> to Washington to work on plans for his own graphical overlay for DOS."
>
> VisiOn was shown in the Fall of 1982, and TopView was impending from
> IBM in 1983. That means lots of people were hard at work on GUI
> systems for years before Apple introduced the Mac in 1984.
>
> VisiOn makes far more sense as the inspiration for Windows, because it
> too was a DOS shell and it to ran on PC hardware. Facts ignored by
> Maccies because those give none of the credit to Apple Computer, Inc.
>
> Notice also that Bill Gates got nothing from VisiOn that the general
> public did not, but that won't stop Maccies of accusing him of theft.
>
> Why do Maccies claim that Windows is copied from the Mac? Because
> they're ignorant of all the other GUI systems that were under
> development for the PC, and because Windows was released a year after
> the Mac was:
Because they did. Look closely at the screen shots of Win1.o. Do you see
any icons representing either executables or files, any program groups?
No, what you see is a window (a crude on at that) with a list of items
in it Do you know how to execute files in Win 1.0? You highlight the
text for the executable, pull down the file menu and pick 'run.' Not
exactly a GUI
--
George Graves
"Outside of a dog, a book is probably a man's best friend.
Inside of a dog, its too dark to read."
Groucho Marx
Mike Dee
> Mac advocates have long claimed that Windows was copied from the Mac
> OS.
[massive rant and M$ shill propaganda snipped]
Get a grip Edwin, you're losing it (again).
D.
Jim Polaski
<gmgraves-531B1C...@newssvr14-ext.news.prodigy.com>,
George Graves <gmgr...@pacbell.net> wrote:
Phew...edlost beaten and slapped down again. His lostness laid bare once
again....sigh this gets tedious.
OTOH, the chronology is interesting in that a few more things get filled
in. Maybe his lostness is good for *somthing*, however small.
--
Regards,
Jim Polaski
Linux for servers,Palm for mobility,Mac for productivity,
Windows for the black hole in your IT budget!
Andrew J. Brehm
> (Its like saying that we wouldn't have the electric light or the
> phonograph were it not for Edison, The telephone were it not for Bell, and
> the Airplane were not for the Wrights.
Eletric light was invented at least three times.
Johann Heinrich Hoebel built his light bulb in 1854.
Edison patented his in 1879.
And Osram built the first light bulb as we know it today in 1905.
So who invented the light bulb, the man who made the first, the man who
patented the idea, or the company that developed the concept we still
use today?
It's difficult, but I'd rule out Edison.
Edison's phonograph (1877) could only play for a minute, the media could
not be copied or playd more often than five times, and the sound quality
was horrible. (This is actually the dream device of the record
industry.)
Emil Berliner invented the concept of the disc and a phonograph that was
actually working in 1887, ten years later.
The telephone was invented in (I think) 1877 by Bell and before that by
Johann Philipp Reis, who presented his telephone in 1861.
And the Wrights only built the first airplane with an engine, I think.
It was a great invention, but the invention was only the part how to get
it to work. Several people were working on the idea.
I don't think Bell and Edison are particularly good examples for how
important an individual inventor is for new technology, so I think you
have made your point.
P.S.: But I wonder whether Edison wouldn't be the ideal mascot for the
RIAA. He invented the ideal phonograph and patented every single idea he
could smell.
PS/2: Does anybody know an Edison invention that was not invented
earlier or only made workable by somebody else?
--
Andrew J. Brehm
Fan of Woody Allen
PowerPC User
Supporter of Pepperoni Pizza
flip
and...@netneurotic.de (Andrew J. Brehm) wrote:
> George Graves <gmgr...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> > (Its like saying that we wouldn't have the electric light or the
> > phonograph were it not for Edison, The telephone were it not for Bell, and
> > the Airplane were not for the Wrights.
>
> Eletric light was invented at least three times.
>
> Johann Heinrich Hoebel built his light bulb in 1854.
>
> Edison patented his in 1879.
>
> And Osram built the first light bulb as we know it today in 1905.
>
> So who invented the light bulb, the man who made the first, the man who
> patented the idea, or the company that developed the concept we still
> use today?
>
> It's difficult, but I'd rule out Edison.
>
Of course you would. You always reject every piece of evidence that
isn't exactly what you want it to be.
In this case, the patent office reviewed Edison's claims and allowed the
patent - showing that it was novel. Without knowing any facts or what
was known at the time, you're instantly willing to reject Edison's
claims.
Edwin
Dee) wrote:
>In article <kpsjqucqmnj1eh0kq...@4ax.com>, Edwin
><ze...@aiur.org> wrote:
>
>> Mac advocates have long claimed that Windows was copied from the Mac
>> OS.
>
>[massive rant and M$ shill propaganda snipped]
That's your labels for a reasoned argument backed by facts?
>Get a grip Edwin, you're losing it (again).
There's no other way to say this: you're an imbecile, Mike.
Edwin
wrote:
The fact that George disagrees with me doesn't make me wrong. I will
answer him and demonstrate that.
>OTOH, the chronology is interesting in that a few more things get filled
>in. Maybe his lostness is good for *somthing*, however small.
Yes, read the page and see how foolish your Mac advocate myths are.
Edwin
wrote:
>In article <kpsjqucqmnj1eh0kq...@4ax.com>,
> Edwin <ze...@aiur.org> wrote:
>
>> Mac advocates have long claimed that Windows was copied from the Mac
>> OS. It's a ridiculous notion when one stops to consider that Mac OS
>> was not a shell riding on top of DOS as Windows was. It becomes even
>> sillier when one takes into account that the two operating systems
>> were written for different hardware, and so it would have been
>> impossible to make a direct copy.
>
>C'mon Edwin, my friend, this is a specious argument on several fronts:
>
>(1) The fact that Windows was originally a GUI shell riding atop DOS
>(much of the luggage of which, it still retains, unfortunately) is
>irrelevant. The shell copied features popularized in the Mac such as the
>mouse and icons to represent files.
"Copied' implies they copied code. That's impossible for the reasons
I gave. Ideas can't be patented or copyrighted, only implementations
of an idea can.
The ideas of the mouse and the icon didn't originate with Apple, and
it was Windows that "popularized" them, by putting them in more
people's hands than Apple ever did.
>(2) Today, there are a number X-Windowing GUI shells which work over
>Linux and other forms of Unix. These shells are unabashed copies of
>Windows. Yet Windows is no longer a DOS shell, but a full GUI featured
>OS. Does then mean that the virtual copy of Windows graphical interface,
>is not a copy because X-Windows is a shell?
See above.
>(3) The hardware is also irrelevant.
No it's not. Code can not be copied for hardware it won't run on.
>The aforementioned Unix with its
>X-Windowing and Windows-like GUI shell is totally architecture portable
>and will run equally on x86 architecture,
You seem to think anything that draws a box on the screen is the same
thing!
> PPC architecture, DEC Alpha,
>SUN, IBM, and a number of other platforms, all of which, I believe, have
>different hardware configurations. These shells *LOOK* like Windows 98
>on all of them.
Yet none of them do it the way Windows does it, therefore none are
copies.
>> A favorite assertion of Maccies is that "we'd all be using DOS now if
>> it weren't for Apple."
>
>While I won't go that far
Many of your fellow Maccies did.
> (Its like saying that we wouldn't have the
>electric light or the phonograph were it not for Edison, The telephone
>were it not for Bell, and the Airplane were not for the Wrights. Good
>ideas appear when the time is right for them as is witnessed by the fact
>that at least two other people had the idea for the telephone at
>preceisly the same time as Bell),
Yes, I agree.
> I will say that Apple took the first
>step to popularize the concept and to show that a GUI took the computer
>to a whole new level of accessibility.
I disagree with that. Whatever Apple did was sold at premium prices
to the elite few. Go to the page I referenced in my first post to see
the systems that truly "popularized the GUI" and "took the computer to
a whole new level of accessibility."
> If Apple hadn't done it, surely
>someone else would have,
Someone else did do it, and they did it *before* Apple did!
> but the point is Apple DID do it first in a
>commercial product and it made Bill gates sit up and take serious
>notice.
Didn't you bother to read what I posted, or the references I gave you?
It was VisiOn that made "Bill gates [sic] sit up and take serious
notice," not the Mac.
>> Here's a site that throws cold water on that nonsense:
>>
>> http://members.fortunecity.com/pcmuseum/windows.htm
>>
>> "Microsoft first began development of the Interface Manager
>> (subsequently renamed Microsoft Windows) in September 1981."
>
>Yes they did. Unfortunately, it was AFTER Apple began work on the Lisa.
>Since Gates was shown early Lisa development when he visited Apple in
>1980 (something your "history" site leaves out), that's clearly where he
>got the idea. And to call Windows 1.0 a GUI, is really stretching
>things. The Xerox PARC's Star system was more of a GUI than Windows 1.0,
>and that's not saying very much.
How can you both say that Windows 1.0 is not a GUI, and that it's a
copy of the Lisa's GUI?
>Also, the Lisa shipped before Windows 1.0 as your site clearly points
>out.
It does indeed. It also points out that VisiOn shipped before the
Lisa.
> I wonder where the author of that site got the screen shots of
>Win1.0? Maybe he was the guy who bought the one copy that MS actually
>sold. ;-)
Could be. :-)
>> Whoa! That's a long time before the Mac came out.
>
>But Windows 1.0 didn't ship until 1983, AFTER the Lisa shipped and about
>the same time as the Mac was debuted.
The point was they were working on it before the Lisa came out.
>> "Although the first prototypes used Multiplan and Word-like menus at
>> the bottom of the screen, the interface was changed in 1982 to use
>> pull-down menus and dialogs, as used on the Xerox Star. "
>
>Wishful thinking. I worked at PARC in the early '80's (as I have
>nmebtioned before) and got to use Star. Win1.0 might have had pull-down
>menus and dialogs, but they weren't like Star.
The point was the ideas involved were not Apple's.
>> "As used on the Xerox Star?" I guess Maccies must think only Apple
>> has the 'right' to imitate Xerox.
>
>A little knowledge seems to truly be a dangerous thing, Edwin. Its more
>like Gates was copying the Apple Lisa who imitated (to a certain extent)
>Star.
No, it's more like they were copying the Xerox Star.
>> "Microsoft finally announced Windows in November 1983, with pressure
>> from just-released VisiOn and impending TopView."
>
>> Oh no! The most cherished Mac advocate myth of all has been smashed
>> to smithereens! The first GUI for personal computers wasn't Mac OS at
>> all. It was VisiOn for the PC!
>
>No, it wasn't it was the Apple Lisa.
It didn't have to be "the Apple Lisa" to be a GUI.
>> "The first GUI for the PC!"
>>
>> "VisiOn: a graphical environment promoted by VisiCorp, the publishers
>> of the VisiCalc spreadsheet. "
>>
>> "VisiCorp shows the VisiOn graphical user interface at the Fall 1982
>> Comdex."
>>
>> A year after Microsoft started their Windows project.
>>
>> "Bill Gates sits through three back-to-back demonstrations.
>> He flies in other Microsoft officials to watch, then hightails it back
>> to Washington to work on plans for his own graphical overlay for DOS."
>>
>> VisiOn was shown in the Fall of 1982, and TopView was impending from
>> IBM in 1983. That means lots of people were hard at work on GUI
>> systems for years before Apple introduced the Mac in 1984.
>>
>> VisiOn makes far more sense as the inspiration for Windows, because it
>> too was a DOS shell and it to ran on PC hardware. Facts ignored by
>> Maccies because those give none of the credit to Apple Computer, Inc.
>>
>> Notice also that Bill Gates got nothing from VisiOn that the general
>> public did not, but that won't stop Maccies of accusing him of theft.
>>
>> Why do Maccies claim that Windows is copied from the Mac? Because
>> they're ignorant of all the other GUI systems that were under
>> development for the PC, and because Windows was released a year after
>> the Mac was:
>
>Because they did.
Ah, the old "because I say so" retort. Curses! Foiled again! :-P
>Look closely at the screen shots of Win1.o. Do you see
>any icons representing either executables or files, any program groups?
You mean "do I see anything that indicates it was copied from the
Lisa?" Why no, George, I don't.
>No, what you see is a window (a crude on at that) with a list of items
>in it Do you know how to execute files in Win 1.0? You highlight the
>text for the executable, pull down the file menu and pick 'run.' Not
>exactly a GUI
I see you've conveniently forgotten VisiOn. Allow me to jog your
memory. It came out in 1983, it was the first personal computer GUI,
it came out before the Mac, and it ran on the PC.
Scott Higdon
Edwin <ze...@aiur.org> wrote:
> On Sun, 13 Oct 2002 23:27:25 GMT, George Graves <gmgr...@pacbell.net>
> wrote:
>
> >In article <kpsjqucqmnj1eh0kq...@4ax.com>,
> > Edwin <ze...@aiur.org> wrote:
> >
> >> Mac advocates have long claimed that Windows was copied from the Mac
> >> OS. It's a ridiculous notion when one stops to consider that Mac OS
> >> was not a shell riding on top of DOS as Windows was. It becomes even
> >> sillier when one takes into account that the two operating systems
> >> were written for different hardware, and so it would have been
> >> impossible to make a direct copy.
> >
> >C'mon Edwin, my friend, this is a specious argument on several fronts:
> >
> >(1) The fact that Windows was originally a GUI shell riding atop DOS
> >(much of the luggage of which, it still retains, unfortunately) is
> >irrelevant. The shell copied features popularized in the Mac such as the
> >mouse and icons to represent files.
>
> "Copied' implies they copied code. That's impossible for the reasons
> I gave. Ideas can't be patented or copyrighted, only implementations
> of an idea can.
Your average computer user doesn't sit there thinking about code. If he
looks at a Mac desktop and a Windows desktop and thinks, "hey, these
look awfully similar, I think somebody copied off of somebody else" he
doesn't give two shits what the code looks like.
Say Stephen King writes a novel on his computer and I write the exact
same novel on a typewriter. I will not be able to get away with telling
the judge that I didn't copy him because I used a different tool.
--
Scott
Edwin
It's the code that makes it a copy or not, what the average user
thinks of it notwithstanding.
>Say Stephen King writes a novel on his computer and I write the exact
>same novel on a typewriter. I will not be able to get away with telling
>the judge that I didn't copy him because I used a different tool.
Good analogy. We look at the code of Windows, and the code of the
Mac, and we see the former is not a copy of the later. The judge
throws the case out (as he did when Apple sued MS).
Brian Lewis
Edwin <ze...@aiur.org> wrote:
Did you forget about the quicktime lawsuit? They produced quicktime code
that was verbatim in video for windows.
Apple dropping this lawsuit was part of the settlement in '97 that
included the 150million investment by MS.
Edwin
wrote:
Apple wrote QuickTime code for Windows as well as for the Mac, and the
two are not the same, even though they handle the same file formats.
>Apple dropping this lawsuit was part of the settlement in '97 that
>included the 150million investment by MS.
That does not negate my earlier remarks about copying code.
Brian Lewis
Edwin <ze...@aiur.org> wrote:
That's irrelevent. I'm talking not of QT for windows, but MS's Video For
Windows.
>
> >Apple dropping this lawsuit was part of the settlement in '97 that
> >included the 150million investment by MS.
>
> That does not negate my earlier remarks about copying code.
It does when your quote is used as the context:
> >> Good analogy. We look at the code of Windows, and the code of the
> >> Mac, and we see the former is not a copy of the later. The judge
> >> throws the case out (as he did when Apple sued MS).
Now, if you take quicktime to be part of the "code of the mac" and Video
for Windows as "code of windows" then my reference to Apple's other
lawsuit indeed negates your comments. Or, if you prefer, they even out.
The first lawsuit was a look & feel lawsuit, the second was merely over
stolen code - plain and simple.
Edwin
wrote:
You're talking about both, and trying to make that into proof that
Windows is a copy of the Mac OS. The copied code in MS video for
Windows came from QT for Windows. It's not the same situation as
Windows allegedly coming from Mac OS.
>>
>> >Apple dropping this lawsuit was part of the settlement in '97 that
>> >included the 150million investment by MS.
>>
>> That does not negate my earlier remarks about copying code.
>
>It does when your quote is used as the context:
>
>> >> Good analogy. We look at the code of Windows, and the code of the
>> >> Mac, and we see the former is not a copy of the later. The judge
>> >> throws the case out (as he did when Apple sued MS).
>
>Now, if you take quicktime to be part of the "code of the mac"
That would not be a correct thing to do. QuickTime is different code
for Windows than it is for the Mac, as I have already said.
> and Video
>for Windows as "code of windows" then my reference to Apple's other
>lawsuit indeed negates your comments.
Not in the least. See above.
>Or, if you prefer, they even out.
No they don't.
>The first lawsuit was a look & feel lawsuit, the second was merely over
>stolen code - plain and simple.
Windows is not a copy of the Mac OS. That's the point I was making,
and nothing you have written refutes that point.
Tim Smith
> Mac advocates have long claimed that Windows was copied from the Mac OS.
I've never seen or heard anyone claim that. You are making this up. I've
seen claims that the GUI design was copied.
> It's a ridiculous notion when one stops to consider that Mac OS was not a
> shell riding on top of DOS as Windows was.
So?
> It becomes even sillier when one takes into account that the two operating
> systems were written for different hardware, and so it would have been
> impossible to make a direct copy.
Gosh...maybe that's why no one has claimed that the *implementation* was
copied.
--Tim Smith
George Graves
> On Sun, 13 Oct 2002 23:27:25 GMT, George Graves <gmgr...@pacbell.net>
> wrote:
>
> >In article <kpsjqucqmnj1eh0kq...@4ax.com>,
> > Edwin <ze...@aiur.org> wrote:
> >
> >> Mac advocates have long claimed that Windows was copied from the Mac
> >> OS. It's a ridiculous notion when one stops to consider that Mac OS
> >> was not a shell riding on top of DOS as Windows was. It becomes even
> >> sillier when one takes into account that the two operating systems
> >> were written for different hardware, and so it would have been
> >> impossible to make a direct copy.
> >
> >C'mon Edwin, my friend, this is a specious argument on several fronts:
> >
> >(1) The fact that Windows was originally a GUI shell riding atop DOS
> >(much of the luggage of which, it still retains, unfortunately) is
> >irrelevant. The shell copied features popularized in the Mac such as the
> >mouse and icons to represent files.
>
> "Copied' implies they copied code. That's impossible for the reasons
> I gave. Ideas can't be patented or copyrighted, only implementations
> of an idea can.
So, If I copy a Van Gogh using acrylic paints instead of oils, its not a
copy because I didn't use the same paint he did? And Ideas most
assuredly can be copyrighted. Its called intellectual property.
> The ideas of the mouse and the icon didn't originate with Apple, and
> it was Windows that "popularized" them, by putting them in more
> people's hands than Apple ever did.
But long after Apple did it. By sheer numbers, yes, but Apple had the
idea first and it so impressed Bill Gates that he told his programmers
"Make it like the Mac. I want Windows to be like the Mac" It took 'em 10
years, but eventually they got something similar to the Mac. Just not as
good. It still isn't.
> >(2) Today, there are a number X-Windowing GUI shells which work over
> >Linux and other forms of Unix. These shells are unabashed copies of
> >Windows. Yet Windows is no longer a DOS shell, but a full GUI featured
> >OS. Does then mean that the virtual copy of Windows graphical interface,
> >is not a copy because X-Windows is a shell?
>
> See above
Tells me nothing Edwin.
> >(3) The hardware is also irrelevant.
>
> No it's not. Code can not be copied for hardware it won't run on.
Code is irrelvant. Look and feel is relevant.
> >The aforementioned Unix with its
> >X-Windowing and Windows-like GUI shell is totally architecture portable
> >and will run equally on x86 architecture,
>
> You seem to think anything that draws a box on the screen is the same
> thing!
No, I don't, but Microsoft clearly does.
>
> > PPC architecture, DEC Alpha,
> >SUN, IBM, and a number of other platforms, all of which, I believe, have
> >different hardware configurations. These shells *LOOK* like Windows 98
> >on all of them.
>
> Yet none of them do it the way Windows does it, therefore none are
> copies.
The look and feel like Windows - on purpose.
> >> A favorite assertion of Maccies is that "we'd all be using DOS now if
> >> it weren't for Apple."
> >
> >While I won't go that far
>
> Many of your fellow Maccies did.
>
> > (Its like saying that we wouldn't have the
> >electric light or the phonograph were it not for Edison, The telephone
> >were it not for Bell, and the Airplane were not for the Wrights. Good
> >ideas appear when the time is right for them as is witnessed by the fact
> >that at least two other people had the idea for the telephone at
> >preceisly the same time as Bell),
>
> Yes, I agree.
>
> > I will say that Apple took the first
> >step to popularize the concept and to show that a GUI took the computer
> >to a whole new level of accessibility.
>
> I disagree with that. Whatever Apple did was sold at premium prices
> to the elite few. Go to the page I referenced in my first post to see
> the systems that truly "popularized the GUI" and "took the computer to
> a whole new level of accessibility."
That's not relevant either. Gates clearly and unabashedly wanted Windows
to be like the Mac and said so - more than once.
>
> > If Apple hadn't done it, surely
> >someone else would have,
>
> Someone else did do it, and they did it *before* Apple did!
No, they didn't. Windows 1.0 didn't ship until 1985 - over a year after
the Mac came out.
>
> > but the point is Apple DID do it first in a
> >commercial product and it made Bill gates sit up and take serious
> >notice.
>
> Didn't you bother to read what I posted, or the references I gave you?
> It was VisiOn that made "Bill gates [sic] sit up and take serious
> notice," not the Mac.
Didn't you read what I posted? Gates saw the Lisa system in 1980 and
went home and started work on Win 1.0.
>
> >> Here's a site that throws cold water on that nonsense:
> >>
> >> http://members.fortunecity.com/pcmuseum/windows.htm
> >>
> >> "Microsoft first began development of the Interface Manager
> >> (subsequently renamed Microsoft Windows) in September 1981."
> >
> >Yes they did. Unfortunately, it was AFTER Apple began work on the Lisa.
> >Since Gates was shown early Lisa development when he visited Apple in
> >1980 (something your "history" site leaves out), that's clearly where he
> >got the idea. And to call Windows 1.0 a GUI, is really stretching
> >things. The Xerox PARC's Star system was more of a GUI than Windows 1.0,
> >and that's not saying very much.
>
> How can you both say that Windows 1.0 is not a GUI, and that it's a
> copy of the Lisa's GUI?
I didn't say it was a copy of the Lisa. I said Gates saw the Lisa and
went back home and started to work on Win 1.0
> >Also, the Lisa shipped before Windows 1.0 as your site clearly points
> >out.
>
> It does indeed. It also points out that VisiOn shipped before the
> Lisa.
Have you ever seen VisiOn? I thought not, or you wouldn't have said
that. Remember Edwin, Gates said "Make Windows like the Mac. I want it
like the Mac." End of story.
> > I wonder where the author of that site got the screen shots of
> >Win1.0? Maybe he was the guy who bought the one copy that MS actually
> >sold. ;-)
>
> Could be. :-)
>
> >> Whoa! That's a long time before the Mac came out.
> >
> >But Windows 1.0 didn't ship until 1983, AFTER the Lisa shipped and about
> >the same time as the Mac was debuted.
>
> The point was they were working on it before the Lisa came out.
But they weren't working on it before Apple was working on the Lisa. And
I was wrong, Win 1.0 was ANNOUNCED in 1983, it didn't ship until 1985 -
1.5 years AFTER the Mac first shipped.
> >> "Although the first prototypes used Multiplan and Word-like menus at
> >> the bottom of the screen, the interface was changed in 1982 to use
> >> pull-down menus and dialogs, as used on the Xerox Star. "
> >
> >Wishful thinking. I worked at PARC in the early '80's (as I have
> >nmebtioned before) and got to use Star. Win1.0 might have had pull-down
> >menus and dialogs, but they weren't like Star.
>
> The point was the ideas involved were not Apple's.
The point is wrong. The development of Lisa predates the begining of the
work on Win 1.0 by at least a year.
>
> >> "As used on the Xerox Star?" I guess Maccies must think only Apple
> >> has the 'right' to imitate Xerox.
> >
> >A little knowledge seems to truly be a dangerous thing, Edwin. Its more
> >like Gates was copying the Apple Lisa who imitated (to a certain extent)
> >Star.
>
> No, it's more like they were copying the Xerox Star.
To my knowledge, nobody at MS ever saw the Xerox system. And I'm
reasonably sure Gates never saw it. But Gates DID see Lisa development.
Again. Have you ever seen VisiOn? I thought not.
George Graves
Scott Higdon <s.hi...@mindspring.com> wrote:
Exactly.
> Say Stephen King writes a novel on his computer and I write the exact
> same novel on a typewriter. I will not be able to get away with telling
> the judge that I didn't copy him because I used a different tool.
Good point.
Woofbert
Tim Smith <reply_i...@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
Go get yourself a copy of Inside Macintosh and a copy of Petzold's book
for programming for Windows 3.1. Read up on how to write applications
for the two environments. Marvel at the similarities between the two
environments... Windows does everything the Mac does, only a little
differently. Of course, that's to be expected; the Microsoft engineers
were given copies of Inside Macintosh, fer gosh sakes!
--
Woofbert, Chief Rocket Surgeon, Infernosoft
Now that Mac OS is based on Unix, does that mean we have to adopt the same
cutesy lame-ass plurali standarden as the rest of the Unix world?
Woofbert
and...@netneurotic.de (Andrew J. Brehm) wrote:
> And the Wrights only built the first airplane with an engine, I think.
The Wrights realized that the air pressure/flow tables they were working
with were all wrong, so they had to go back a step and remeasure
everything. Once they did that, they could go back and design a wing
that worked properly.
They realized that the main wings had to control the airplane's roll, so
they built the wings so they could warp. (Later this was refined to
aelerons.) I don't recall whether they were the first to dump feathers
as an idea for building airplanes with.
Certainly they built upon a lot of earlier work done by others, but the
Wrights did get the first powered flight.
"If God had meant Man to fly, He would have given us the Wright
brothers."
Mike Dee
Edwin <ze...@aiur.org> wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Oct 2002 10:29:59 +1000, emte...@optushome.com.au (Mike
> Dee) wrote:
>
> >In article <kpsjqucqmnj1eh0kq...@4ax.com>, Edwin
> ><ze...@aiur.org> wrote:
> >
> >> Mac advocates have long claimed that Windows was copied from the Mac
> >> OS.
> >
> >[massive rant and M$ shill propaganda snipped]
>
> That's your labels for a reasoned argument backed by facts?
Who's fact are these? And, aren't they simply the "facts" you wish to
believe?
> >Get a grip Edwin, you're losing it (again).
>
> There's no other way to say this: you're an imbecile, Mike.
Thanks, I aim to please.
D.
Sandman
> Mac advocates have long claimed that Windows was copied from the Mac OS.
> It's a ridiculous notion when one stops to consider that Mac OS was not
> a shell riding on top of DOS as Windows was.
And we all know that the similarities of GUI's are judged on the
underlying OS structure. :-D
> It becomes even sillier when one takes into account that the two
> operating systems were written for different hardware, and so it would
> have been impossible to make a direct copy.
It is a well known fact that Microsoft actually copied the -CODE- from
Apple to make Windows. They used industrial espionage to gain access to
the code which they then recompiled for Intel and called "Windows".
Edwin, you are WAY to easy to smack around these days.
--
Sandman[.net]
Sandman
April 1973
The first operational Alto computer is finnished in Xerox PARC. It
features a three-button mouse, a bitmap display and graphical "windows".
June 1981
Xerox introduces the Star, the successor to the Alto. It features
double-clickable icons, overlapping windows, dialog boxes and a
1024x768 monochrome display
http://sandman.net/gui/bigstar.jpg
January 1983
Apple introduces Lisa. Features menu bars and pulldown menus.
http://sandman.net/gui/biglisa.jpg
April 1983
VisiCorp releases VisiOn, the first graphical interface for IBM PCs,
features overlapping windows but lacks icons and has no mouse support.
http://sandman.net/gui/visionwin.jpg
November 1983
Microsoft ANNOUNCES Windows 1.0, and claims that it will have
overlapping windows
January 1984
Apple introduces the Macintosh, with it's fully operational graphical
interface with dialog boxes, menues, folders, icons and so on.
http://sandman.net/gui/bigmac1.gif
June 1984
MIT announces "X Windows System" for their VAXen stations.
September 1984
Digital research releases GEM for 8086 and DOS-based computers. It was
later ported to Aari ST. This is the second company to release a GUI for
the PC without Microsoft managing to get anything about.
http://sandman.net/gui/biggem1.gif
February 1985
GEOS released for Commodore 64 and later to the Apple II.
July 1985
Commodore introduces the Amiga 1000 with the Amiga Workbench 1.0
http://sandman.net/gui/wb_10.gif
August 1985
Microsoft FINALLY releases Windows 1.0. Windows cannot be overlapped
and they cannot cover an area at the bottom of the screen reserved for
"iconzed" programs
http://sandman.net/gui/bigw101.gif
You're welcome.
--
Sandman[.net]
C Lund
>>(3) The hardware is also irrelevant.
>No it's not. Code can not be copied for hardware it won't run on.
Maybe not, but a large chunk of any given program can run on quite a
variety of hardware. Say you write a Mac program in C. The only parts of
that app that won't run on Windows are the parts with hardware specific
calls. Back in my student days I used Sun/Solaris at the University and
a Mac IIsi at home and often ported apps back and forth across the two
platforms. Most of this porting was a matter of "cut and paste", except
for the UI parts which were completely different on both platforms, and
the fact that the University was using Simula* and I was using Pascal,
which made it necessary to do some minor adjustments to the code. If we
had been using C at the time, porting the non-UI parts would have been
entirely a matter of cut'n'paste.
So even if your claim is technically correct, it's mostly irrelevant.
*Simula is almost the same as Pascal, only backwards. Nobody uses it any
more, afaik.
--
C Lund, Oslo
http://www.notam02.no/~clund/
C Lund
Edwin <ze...@aiur.org> wrote:
>The fact that George disagrees with me doesn't make me wrong.
You're not wrong because he says you're wrong; you're wrong because
you're wrong. He (GG) just happened to be the one who told you you're
wrong - and explained why as well.
Tim Smith
wrote:
> Go get yourself a copy of Inside Macintosh and a copy of Petzold's book
> for programming for Windows 3.1. Read up on how to write applications for
> the two environments. Marvel at the similarities between the two
> environments... Windows does everything the Mac does, only a little
> differently. Of course, that's to be expected; the Microsoft engineers
> were given copies of Inside Macintosh, fer gosh sakes!
Well, I've read Petzold, and I've read IM (several times...starting with a
copy that was "borrowed" from Apple before the Mac was released). At the
programming level, they aren't all that similar. You structure a Mac app
and a Windows app quite differently, because of the different way they
handle dispatching events.
They take very different approaches to graphics, too. GDI is nothing like
Quickdraw, for example.
From a programming point of view, pretty much all the similarities are
things that are going to be common to pretty much any windowing system. If
you throw other systems, like X, into the comparision, you won't see Windows
matching Mac any more than it matches X, or X matches Mac.
It's the look and feel of the Mac that influenced others, not the API and
event model.
--Tim Smith
Tim Smith
> Hello Edwin! Your lesson starts here:
>
> April 1973
> The first operational Alto computer is finnished in Xerox PARC. It
> features a three-button mouse, a bitmap display and graphical "windows".
>
> June 1981
> Xerox introduces the Star, the successor to the Alto. It features
> double-clickable icons, overlapping windows, dialog boxes and a
> 1024x768 monochrome display
> http://sandman.net/gui/bigstar.jpg
Also in 1981, AT&T had the Jerq, which was a bit-mapped terminal with
overlapping windows and a mouse. (The Jerq is what became the Blit 5620
later, when it moved out of the lab and became a product).
Somewhere around here, I wrote something amusing. It let me open multiple
shells on my 24x80 terminal, each in a "window". So, it would look
something like this:
+---shell 2 ----------------------------+
|$ |
|$ +---shell 2 -----------------------------+
|$ |$ |
|$ |$ |
|$ |$ |
|$ cp foo |$ |
|$ rm spam|$ echo I am in a window! |
+---------|echo I am in a window! |
|$ |
+----------------------------------------+
I think I was inspired by the Jerq. I hadn't seen one, but I liked the idea
of multiple windows.
I wonder what was the first use of overlapping windows? I'd guess it was
some text-based program. Maybe Emacs? (I don't recall if it does overlapping
windows or tiled windows).
--Tim Smith
Peter Ammon
[...]
>
> Edison's phonograph (1877) could only play for a minute, the media could
> not be copied or playd more often than five times, and the sound quality
> was horrible. (This is actually the dream device of the record
> industry.)
HA! If I used a .sig, this would be it!
-Peter
flip
Sandman <m...@sandman.net> wrote:
You forgot to include the release dates for Word and Excel. Edwin seems
to be confused about that, too.
Scott Higdon
Edwin <ze...@aiur.org> wrote:
In this case, the code is less relevant because, as you say, Windows and
Mac are different platforms. That doesn't mean that Windows can't copy
Mac.
Microsoft Word is a word processor. Appleworks is a word processor.
DIfferent code. Same basic functions. What the user sees is what counts.
And the user sees two typin' programs.
>
> >Say Stephen King writes a novel on his computer and I write the exact
> >same novel on a typewriter. I will not be able to get away with telling
> >the judge that I didn't copy him because I used a different tool.
>
> Good analogy. We look at the code of Windows, and the code of the
> Mac, and we see the former is not a copy of the later. The judge
> throws the case out (as he did when Apple sued MS).
Nice job ignoring the analogy. That took effort.
>
> Edwin
> ----
> In the world of mammals there are two mountain peaks,
> one is Mount Homo Sapiens and the other is Mount Cetacea.
> -- Professor Teizo Ogawa
--
Scott
Edwin
"Mike Dee" <emte...@optushome.com.au> wrote in message
news:aodquv$ln7f6$1...@ID-119983.news.dfncis.de...
> In article <skdkqusgirv0cehr1...@4ax.com>,
> Edwin <ze...@aiur.org> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 14 Oct 2002 10:29:59 +1000, emte...@optushome.com.au (Mike
> > Dee) wrote:
> >
> > >In article <kpsjqucqmnj1eh0kq...@4ax.com>, Edwin
> > ><ze...@aiur.org> wrote:
> > >
> > >> Mac advocates have long claimed that Windows was copied from the Mac
> > >> OS.
> > >
> > >[massive rant and M$ shill propaganda snipped]
> >
> > That's your labels for a reasoned argument backed by facts?
>
> Who's fact are these?
Click the links you snipped out. Read the quotes I gave.
>And, aren't they simply the "facts" you wish to
> believe?
You're attempting to project into me your Mac advoate desire to pick out
only facts you like.
> > >Get a grip Edwin, you're losing it (again).
> >
> > There's no other way to say this: you're an imbecile, Mike.
>
> Thanks, I aim to please.
You're welcome, doofus.
Edwin
Edwin
"Tim Smith" <reply_i...@mouse-potato.com> wrote in message
news:slrnaqkkqj.n2f...@tzs.net...
> In article <kpsjqucqmnj1eh0kq...@4ax.com>, Edwin wrote:
> > Mac advocates have long claimed that Windows was copied from the Mac OS.
>
> I've never seen or heard anyone claim that.
How nice for you. I've seen that claimed ad nausem in this group.
> You are making this up.
You're a liar.
>I've
> seen claims that the GUI design was copied.
A pedantic liar at that.
> > It's a ridiculous notion when one stops to consider that Mac OS was not
a
> > shell riding on top of DOS as Windows was.
>
> So?
So Windows is not a copy of Mac OS!
> > It becomes even sillier when one takes into account that the two
operating
> > systems were written for different hardware, and so it would have been
> > impossible to make a direct copy.
>
> Gosh...maybe that's why no one has claimed that the *implementation* was
> copied.
Sure they did. Pull your head from where the sun don't shine.
Edwin
Edwin
My, my! Here's Woofbert claiming Windows is copied from Mac OS, and you
having to tell him he's wrong.
Let's hope you can remember this incident, so you won't keep telling people
nobody ever claimed Windows is a copy of Mac OS.
Edwin
Edwin
"Sandman" <m...@sandman.net> wrote in message
news:mr-887C9C.09...@news.fu-berlin.de...
> In article <kpsjqucqmnj1eh0kq...@4ax.com>,
> Edwin <ze...@aiur.org> wrote:
>
> > Mac advocates have long claimed that Windows was copied from the Mac OS.
> > It's a ridiculous notion when one stops to consider that Mac OS was not
> > a shell riding on top of DOS as Windows was.
>
> And we all know that the similarities of GUI's are judged on the
> underlying OS structure. :-D
Did you ever hear the phrase "form follows function?"
> > It becomes even sillier when one takes into account that the two
> > operating systems were written for different hardware, and so it would
> > have been impossible to make a direct copy.
>
> It is a well known fact that Microsoft actually copied the -CODE- from
> Apple to make Windows. They used industrial espionage to gain access to
> the code which they then recompiled for Intel and called "Windows".
Tim Smith ought to thank you. You've repeated what he says he never saw
anyone claim.
Your retelling of that nonsense goes a step beyond, with its "industrial
espionange" fantasy. Good job, Sandman.
> Edwin, you are WAY to easy to smack around these days.
Please confine your Sado-Masochistic fantasies to your gay lovers. Thank
you.
Edwin
> --
> Sandman[.net]
Edwin
> Hello Edwin! Your lesson starts here:
Sandman's lesson on how to ignore facts and revise history.
> April 1973
> The first operational Alto computer is finnished in Xerox PARC. It
> features a three-button mouse, a bitmap display and graphical
"windows".
So we see that Apple did NOT invent the GUI.
> June 1981
> Xerox introduces the Star, the successor to the Alto. It features
> double-clickable icons, overlapping windows, dialog boxes and a
> 1024x768 monochrome display
> http://sandman.net/gui/bigstar.jpg
1982 Comdex:
VisiOn is introduced as the first GUI for the PC, and inspires Bill Gates.
Note that it predates the Lisa and the Mac.
http://members.fortunecity.com/pcmuseum/windows.htm
I was thanking you for proving me right about Apple not inventing the GUI,
and MS not copying it from Apple.
Edwin
Edwin
"C Lund" <christop...@NOSPAMchello.no> wrote in message
news:christopher.lund-A6...@news01.chello.no...
> In article <eodkqucl3p435fqfr...@4ax.com>,
> Edwin <ze...@aiur.org> wrote:
>
> >The fact that George disagrees with me doesn't make me wrong.
>
> You're not wrong because he says you're wrong; you're wrong because
> you're wrong. He (GG) just happened to be the one who told you you're
> wrong - and explained why as well.
Your empty assertions aren't worth the electrons it took to send them.
Edwin
Nicolas
"Andrew J. Brehm" wrote:
>
> George Graves <gmgr...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> > (Its like saying that we wouldn't have the electric light or the
> > phonograph were it not for Edison, The telephone were it not for Bell, and
> > the Airplane were not for the Wrights.
>
> Eletric light was invented at least three times.
>
> Johann Heinrich Hoebel built his light bulb in 1854.
>
> Edison patented his in 1879.
>
> And Osram built the first light bulb as we know it today in 1905.
>
> So who invented the light bulb, the man who made the first, the man who
> patented the idea, or the company that developed the concept we still
> use today?
>
> It's difficult, but I'd rule out Edison.
>
> Edison's phonograph (1877) could only play for a minute, the media could
> not be copied or playd more often than five times, and the sound quality
> was horrible. (This is actually the dream device of the record
> industry.)
>
> Emil Berliner invented the concept of the disc and a phonograph that was
> actually working in 1887, ten years later.
>
> The telephone was invented in (I think) 1877 by Bell and before that by
> Johann Philipp Reis, who presented his telephone in 1861.
>
> And the Wrights only built the first airplane with an engine, I think.
>
> It was a great invention, but the invention was only the part how to get
> it to work. Several people were working on the idea.
>
> I don't think Bell and Edison are particularly good examples for how
> important an individual inventor is for new technology, so I think you
> have made your point.
>
> P.S.: But I wonder whether Edison wouldn't be the ideal mascot for the
> RIAA. He invented the ideal phonograph and patented every single idea he
> could smell.
>
> PS/2: Does anybody know an Edison invention that was not invented
> earlier or only made workable by somebody else?
Don't know abnout that, but most of the technology we use today,
especially when it pertains to lightning, electricity and wireless
transmission of EM waves etc, is a brainchild of Tesla.
All others pale in comparison;)
Nicolas
> Andrew J. Brehm
> Fan of Woody Allen
> PowerPC User
> Supporter of Pepperoni Pizza
George Graves
"Edwin" <ze...@aiur.org> wrote:
> "Sandman" <m...@sandman.net> wrote in message
> news:mr-314F3F.09...@news.fu-berlin.de...
> > Hello Edwin! Your lesson starts here:
>
> Sandman's lesson on how to ignore facts and revise history.
>
> > April 1973
> > The first operational Alto computer is finnished in Xerox PARC. It
> > features a three-button mouse, a bitmap display and graphical
> "windows".
>
> So we see that Apple did NOT invent the GUI.
I don't remember ANYONE ever saying that they did.
>
> > June 1981
> > Xerox introduces the Star, the successor to the Alto. It features
> > double-clickable icons, overlapping windows, dialog boxes and a
> > 1024x768 monochrome display
> > http://sandman.net/gui/bigstar.jpg
>
> 1982 Comdex:
>
> VisiOn is introduced as the first GUI for the PC, and inspires Bill Gates.
> Note that it predates the Lisa and the Mac.
>
> http://members.fortunecity.com/pcmuseum/windows.htm
Introduced doesn't mean 'shipped.' Jobs "introduced" OSX in 1999 at a
Mac show. It didn't ship until April 2001.
Since nobody ever contended that Apple invented the GUI, there's no
contest there, but MS DID copy the ideas used in Apple's implementation
of the GUI, first in Win 3.0, then even more in Win 95. But look how
long it took them to get there! Why is that Edwin?
George Graves
"Edwin" <ze...@aiur.org> wrote:
> "Tim Smith" <reply_i...@mouse-potato.com> wrote in message
> news:slrnaqkkqj.n2f...@tzs.net...
> > In article <kpsjqucqmnj1eh0kq...@4ax.com>, Edwin wrote:
> > > Mac advocates have long claimed that Windows was copied from the Mac OS.
> >
> > I've never seen or heard anyone claim that.
>
> How nice for you. I've seen that claimed ad nausem in this group.
I don't think so. I think what you have seen claimed is that almost all
of the GUI elements used in Windows were used on the Mac first. Gates
copied them in that he used the same conventions as the Mac: click to
select, double-click to launch, click and drag to move. These are TRULY
Apple conventions as Windows earlier than 3.0 didn't use icons, and the
icons in the Xerox Altos and Star computers didn't work that way, IIRC.
> > You are making this up.
>
> You're a liar.
>
> >I've
> > seen claims that the GUI design was copied.
>
> A pedantic liar at that.
>
> > > It's a ridiculous notion when one stops to consider that Mac OS was not
> a
> > > shell riding on top of DOS as Windows was.
> >
> > So?
>
> So Windows is not a copy of Mac OS!
Again, you are using semantics to try to un-paint your way out of this
corner. Who ever said that Windows was a "copy" of MacOS? Had it been,
it would be a better OS than it is, and you wouldn't have had to go
through the tortuous maze that constituted Win 3.1 --> Win95 --> Win98
-->ME -->XP. Clearly, MS 'borrowed' many features and conventions from
MacOS, because no other OS other than Mac had them during the time frame
Windows was being developed. Remember, VisiOn didn't use icons, while
Altos, and Star didn't use icons the same way that Apple did. But MS, in
Win 3.0 DID use icons and drag-to-move conventions EXACTLY like the Mac.
Now, you are not naive (or rather I hope you don't think that we are
naive) enough to believe that MS just 'happened' to accidently come
across the exact same GUI conventions that Apple chose 4 years earlier,
are you?
> > > It becomes even sillier when one takes into account that the two
> operating
> > > systems were written for different hardware, and so it would have been
> > > impossible to make a direct copy.
> >
> > Gosh...maybe that's why no one has claimed that the *implementation* was
> > copied.
>
> Sure they did. Pull your head from where the sun don't shine.
No one ever said that Edwin, EVER! And if they did say something like
it, they didn't mean that there was any commonality of code -just
concepts and conventions. That would be a given, because EVERYBODY knows
that Apple and Windows don't really share a common code base. Only
someone with even less understanding of these things than you are
exhibiting would ever think that Microsoft 'lifted' code for Win 3.0 or
Win95 from Apple.
George Graves
Tim Smith <reply_i...@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
Basically, that's what I've been trying to get across to Edwin. But he
won't budge out of his corner with the wet paint all around it :-)
Edwin
"George Graves" <gmgr...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:gmgraves-641648...@newssvr13-ext.news.prodigy.com...
> In article <aoeiok$lhhaa$1...@ID-56786.news.dfncis.de>,
> "Edwin" <ze...@aiur.org> wrote:
>
> > "Sandman" <m...@sandman.net> wrote in message
> > news:mr-314F3F.09...@news.fu-berlin.de...
> > > Hello Edwin! Your lesson starts here:
> >
> > Sandman's lesson on how to ignore facts and revise history.
> >
> > > April 1973
> > > The first operational Alto computer is finnished in Xerox PARC. It
> > > features a three-button mouse, a bitmap display and graphical
> > "windows".
> >
> > So we see that Apple did NOT invent the GUI.
>
> I don't remember ANYONE ever saying that they did.
Danm, that is the oldest Mac advocate trick in the book: when you prove
them wrong, they can't remember having made the wrong statements!
Yes they did! ZnU even went so far to claim Dr. Alan Kay did not invent
the GUI, Apple did!
>there's no
> contest there, but MS DID copy the ideas used in Apple's implementation
> of the GUI, first in Win 3.0, then even more in Win 95. But look how
> long it took them to get there! Why is that Edwin?
The ideas that MS "copied" did not originate with Apple. You're
"contending" that Apple invented the GUI right after telling us "nobody"
ever did that!
Edwin
Lars Träger
> In article <1fk0wyp.cuxidj92pr2mN%and...@netneurotic.de>,
> and...@netneurotic.de (Andrew J. Brehm) wrote:
>
> > George Graves <gmgr...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >
> > > (Its like saying that we wouldn't have the electric light or the
> > > phonograph were it not for Edison, The telephone were it not for Bell, and
> > > the Airplane were not for the Wrights.
> >
> > Eletric light was invented at least three times.
> >
> > Johann Heinrich Hoebel built his light bulb in 1854.
> >
> > Edison patented his in 1879.
> >
> > And Osram built the first light bulb as we know it today in 1905.
> >
> > So who invented the light bulb, the man who made the first, the man who
> > patented the idea, or the company that developed the concept we still
> > use today?
> >
> > It's difficult, but I'd rule out Edison.
> >
>
> Of course you would. You always reject every piece of evidence that
> isn't exactly what you want it to be.
>
> In this case, the patent office reviewed Edison's claims and allowed the
> patent - showing that it was novel. Without knowing any facts or what
> was known at the time, you're instantly willing to reject Edison's
> claims.
Ahh, so Eddison getting a patent is supposed to prove that there was no
prior art? (As if that hasn't happened before, after and to this day.)
When there is actual evidence for there being prior art?
Joe, you've done i again.
Lars T.
--
Zuse ruleZ
Tim Smith
>> April 1973 The first operational Alto computer is finnished in Xerox
>> PARC. It features a three-button mouse, a bitmap display and graphical
> "windows".
>
> So we see that Apple did NOT invent the GUI.
Which is probably why no one has claimed that. Quit making up claims for
your opponents.
--Tim Smith
Woofbert
C Lund <christop...@NOSPAMchello.no> wrote:
> In article <4tdkqu0vqm448snsj...@4ax.com>,
> Edwin <ze...@aiur.org> wrote:
>
> >>(3) The hardware is also irrelevant.
> >No it's not. Code can not be copied for hardware it won't run on.
>
> Maybe not, but a large chunk of any given program can run on quite a
> variety of hardware. Say you write a Mac program in C. The only parts of
> that app that won't run on Windows are the parts with hardware specific
> calls.
Uh... I think you mean specific calls to the operating system.
Programmers don't typically make direct calls to the hardware.
(Exceptions are hardware device drivers, of course.)
Edwin, it is true that code compiled for PPC won't run on x86, and code
compiled for x86 won't run on PPC. However, the C-language versions of
that code will compile to any processor. (Whether it runs anywhere
depends on whether the required operating system calls are present. This
is a seaparate issue. Let's take the case of code written for Linux/x86.
It won't run on Windows even though it's the same hardware.)
> Back in my student days I used Sun/Solaris at the University and
> a Mac IIsi at home and often ported apps back and forth across the two
> platforms. Most of this porting was a matter of "cut and paste", except
> for the UI parts which were completely different on both platforms, and
> the fact that the University was using Simula* and I was using Pascal,
> which made it necessary to do some minor adjustments to the code. If we
> had been using C at the time, porting the non-UI parts would have been
> entirely a matter of cut'n'paste.
>
> So even if your claim is technically correct, it's mostly irrelevant.
>
> *Simula is almost the same as Pascal, only backwards. Nobody uses it any
> more, afaik.
--
Flip
Lars.T...@epost.de (Lars Träger) wrote:
I never said that there was no prior art.
I said that the patent office knew the state of affairs at the time
better than Andrew does.
>
> Joe, you've done i again.
>
Done what? Proven that Andrew doesn't know what he's talking about?
That's easy.
Sandman
"Edwin" <ze...@aiur.org> wrote:
> > Hello Edwin! Your lesson starts here:
>
> Sandman's lesson on how to ignore facts and revise history.
In what way?
> > April 1973
> > The first operational Alto computer is finnished in Xerox PARC. It
> > features a three-button mouse, a bitmap display and graphical
> > "windows".
>
> So we see that Apple did NOT invent the GUI.
The GUI was "invented" back in 1973, no one ever claims otherwise. It's
quite apparent that Apples GUI has had the largest effect on personal
computers today. Everyone knows this.
> > June 1981
> > Xerox introduces the Star, the successor to the Alto. It features
> > double-clickable icons, overlapping windows, dialog boxes and a
> > 1024x768 monochrome display
> > http://sandman.net/gui/bigstar.jpg
>
> 1982 Comdex:
>
> VisiOn is introduced as the first GUI for the PC, and inspires Bill Gates.
> Note that it predates the Lisa and the Mac.
>
> http://members.fortunecity.com/pcmuseum/windows.htm
Just as Microsoft announced Windows 1.0 in November 1983, VisiCorp demoed
their GUI before they -released- it in April 1983.
From your link:
"Microsoft finally announced Windows in November 1983, with pressure from
just-released VisiOn and impending TopView. This was after the release of
the Apple Lisa, and before Digital Research announced GEM"
But hey, at least you -tried- :)
> > August 1985
> > Microsoft FINALLY releases Windows 1.0. Windows cannot be overlapped
> > and they cannot cover an area at the bottom of the screen reserved for
> > "iconzed" programs
> > http://sandman.net/gui/bigw101.gif
> >
> > You're welcome.
>
> I was thanking you for proving me right about Apple not inventing the GUI,
I never claimed they did. And no mac advocate did, when using the word in
the way you want it to be used, desperate as you are when you are cornered.
> and MS not copying it from Apple.
MS copied from everyone, most notably Apple, but they didn't release that
copy until 1995. It's quite apparant that MS failed miserably to copy any
GUI player when they at last released Windows 1.0. They couldn't even keep
up with Commodore.
--
Sandman[.net]
Sandman
"Edwin" <ze...@aiur.org> wrote:
> > > Mac advocates have long claimed that Windows was copied from the Mac OS.
> > > It's a ridiculous notion when one stops to consider that Mac OS was not
> > > a shell riding on top of DOS as Windows was.
> >
> > And we all know that the similarities of GUI's are judged on the
> > underlying OS structure. :-D
>
> Did you ever hear the phrase "form follows function?"
Did you ever hear the phrase "insanity follows Edwin"? :)
> > > It becomes even sillier when one takes into account that the two
> > > operating systems were written for different hardware, and so it would
> > > have been impossible to make a direct copy.
> >
> > It is a well known fact that Microsoft actually copied the -CODE- from
> > Apple to make Windows. They used industrial espionage to gain access to
> > the code which they then recompiled for Intel and called "Windows".
>
> Tim Smith ought to thank you. You've repeated what he says he never saw
> anyone claim.
>
> Your retelling of that nonsense goes a step beyond, with its "industrial
> espionange" fantasy. Good job, Sandman.
Yeah, I have it from a reliable source that Bill Gates actually dressed up
as a woman and went on a date with Steve Jobs, who had the code for MacOS
in his wallet. Bill snatched the wallet and ran away in high heels in the
moonlit night.
> > Edwin, you are WAY to easy to smack around these days.
>
> Please confine your Sado-Masochistic fantasies to your gay lovers. Thank
> you.
*smack* *smack* *smack* It's so easy that it's not even fun. :)
--
Sandman[.net]
Dan Johnson
news:woofbert.spam-313...@typhoon.sonic.net...
> > Gosh...maybe that's why no one has claimed that the
> > *implementation* was copied.
>
> book for programming for Windows 3.1. Read up on how to write
> applications for the two environments. Marvel at the similarities
> between the two environments... Windows does everything the
> Mac does, only a little differently. Of course, that's to be expected;
> the Microsoft engineers were given copies of Inside Macintosh,
> fer gosh sakes!
I've done this comparison. You are mistaken; the
API designs are quite different in a lot of ways. They
do use similar naming conventions for API procedure
names, but that's just about it. The structure of the
Win16 API was a substantial departure from the Macintosh
Toolbox; Microsoft erased the distinction between
"windows" and "controls" and imposed one between
"windows" and "drawing contexts".
They also used a very different messaging system and
handle control and window definitions in an entirely
different way.
And in addition to these major differences there are
many differences in detail. For instance, the use of
separate "brush", "pen" and "font" objects instead
of having all the drawing state in a single object.
Which is not to say that Windows 1 owed nothing
to Apple's earlier efforts. In fact, the big thing Apple
contributed- which we all take for granted today are
the *mouse semantics*.
Apple worked out a systematic way to use the buttons
on a mouse which allowed them to get by with just one
button, quite a coup at the time.
Apple decided that when you mouse down you select
the thing under the mouse, and it should change in
appearance but not actually do anything. When you
mouse up in the same place, that is a "click" and activates
the item you moused down upon. If you move the mouse
first it is a "drag" and moves or copies the item moused-
down upon.
Apple did bend these rules in a number of places:
notably scroll bar arrows and drop down menus. But
the basic idea remains for all that.
The basic mouse semantics I just described are
still in use today. In the first versions of Windows,
Microsoft used them *exactly*: and so the second
mouse button PC mice had back then had no
meaning defined.
In 1995 Microsoft promulgated a new set of UI
guidelines which finally specified what that right
mouse button was to do. It was to behave just
like the left button, except that on mouseup a
menu would appear so the user could choose
an action. It was a completely straightforward
extension of the by-then standard mouse
semantics, nothing more.
It's funny. People credit Apple with any number
of trivialities, and they just don't notice this one
really basic, fundamental thing Apple did
invent.
George Graves
"Edwin" <ze...@aiur.org> wrote:
Edwin. There are other GUIs using other conventions than Apple's. Apple
invented a set of GUI conventions that MS adopted. I say that they did
this because no GUI BEFORE the Lisa used them. They are: click to
select, double-click to launch, and click-drag to move. Since every
Windows GUI since Win 3.0 has used these conventions, they came from
Apple. But there were clearly GUIs to one extent or another BEFORE
Apple, thus Apple cannot be said to have invented the concept of the
Graphical User Interface. Clearer now?
Alan Baker
"Dan Johnson" <daniel...@vzavenue.net> wrote:
Which is one of the reasons Apple failed in its suit against HP and
Microsoft: what Apple had come up with seemed so natural that *after the
fact* the judge was unable to imagine that it was Apple's concept.
It's easy with hindsight to say: "Of course." Not so easy when you're
inventing it as you go.
Flop
> Hello Edwin! Your lesson starts here:
>
> The first operational Alto computer is finnished in Xerox PARC. It
> features a three-button mouse, a bitmap display and graphical "windows".
>
> Xerox introduces the Star, the successor to the Alto. It features
> double-clickable icons, overlapping windows, dialog boxes and a
> 1024x768 monochrome display
> http://sandman.net/gui/bigstar.jpg
>
Even though the header said it was for Edwin, thanks for the timeline
and the pics. I remember GEOS in my youth. One of my first computers
was a C64 and I thought GEOS was fantastic. If anything, that increase
my interest in computers. I always wonder what would have happened if
the PC version of GEOS became the popular GUI instead of Windows. (PC
GEOS came out around the same time as Windows 3.0.) Oh well.
Tim Adams
> "George Graves" <gmgr...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
> news:gmgraves-641648...@newssvr13-ext.news.prodigy.com...
> > In article <aoeiok$lhhaa$1...@ID-56786.news.dfncis.de>,
> > "Edwin" <ze...@aiur.org> wrote:
> >
> > > "Sandman" <m...@sandman.net> wrote in message
> > > news:mr-314F3F.09...@news.fu-berlin.de...
> > > > Hello Edwin! Your lesson starts here:
> > >
> > > Sandman's lesson on how to ignore facts and revise history.
> > >
> > > > April 1973
> > > > The first operational Alto computer is finnished in Xerox PARC. It
> > > > features a three-button mouse, a bitmap display and graphical
> > > "windows".
> > >
> > > So we see that Apple did NOT invent the GUI.
> >
> > I don't remember ANYONE ever saying that they did.
>
> Danm, that is the oldest Mac advocate trick in the book: when you prove
> them wrong, they can't remember having made the wrong statements!
So, if you think you're able to, why don't you do what we do when
proving you wrong. Do a shore search on Google and find the quotes that
show we've claimed Apple invented the GUI.
snip
Steve Hix
Woofbert <woofbe...@infernosoft.com> wrote:
> In article <1fk0wyp.cuxidj92pr2mN%and...@netneurotic.de>,
> and...@netneurotic.de (Andrew J. Brehm) wrote:
>
> > And the Wrights only built the first airplane with an engine, I think.
Not even close. There were powered aircraft being built
20 year earlier, at least. Their common downfall was lack
of controllability.
> The Wrights realized that the air pressure/flow tables they were working
> with were all wrong, so they had to go back a step and remeasure
> everything. Once they did that, they could go back and design a wing
> that worked properly.
To heck with the tables...they built a wind tunnel and tested
airfoils to find what actually worked. Their propellor design
was better than 80% as efficient as normal designs flying 30
years later.
> They realized that the main wings had to control the airplane's roll, so
> they built the wings so they could warp. (Later this was refined to
> aelerons.)
Ailerons were a separate path, the two could not coexist: warping
required flexible wings, ailerons required stiff ones.
The Christmas Bullet (post WW1 charlatan) combined flexible
wing with ailerons...and killed every pilot who tried to fly
it. The wonder is that anyone tried after the first flight.
> I don't recall whether they were the first to dump feathers
> as an idea for building airplanes with.
Cayley back in the 1840s, at least. Da Vinci's theoretical
designs didn't use feathers, either, and that was almost 400
years earlier.
> Certainly they built upon a lot of earlier work done by others, but the
> Wrights did get the first powered flight.
Probably the first controlled powered flight, but it was close.
> "If God had meant Man to fly, He would have given us the Wright
> brothers."
Steve Hix
Sandman <m...@sandman.net> wrote:
> In article <aoeiok$lhhaa$1...@ID-56786.news.dfncis.de>,
> "Edwin" <ze...@aiur.org> wrote:
>
> > > Hello Edwin! Your lesson starts here:
> >
> > Sandman's lesson on how to ignore facts and revise history.
>
> In what way?
>
> > > April 1973
> > > The first operational Alto computer is finnished in Xerox PARC. It
> > > features a three-button mouse, a bitmap display and graphical
> > > "windows".
> >
> > So we see that Apple did NOT invent the GUI.
>
> The GUI was "invented" back in 1973, no one ever claims otherwise. It's
> quite apparent that Apples GUI has had the largest effect on personal
> computers today. Everyone knows this.
Actually workable components preceded the Alto, with Englebart's
work with mice, etc. at SRI. And he built some of his work on
earlier work done by Ivan Sutherland in the late 60s.
Steve Hix
Tim Adams <tea...@attbi.com> wrote:
He can't figure out how to do it.
haochi
> flip <fli...@mac.com> wrote:
>
> > In article <1fk0wyp.cuxidj92pr2mN%and...@netneurotic.de>,
> > and...@netneurotic.de (Andrew J. Brehm) wrote:
> >
> > > George Graves <gmgr...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > > (Its like saying that we wouldn't have the electric light or the
> > > > phonograph were it not for Edison, The telephone were it not for Bell,
> > > > and
Bell stole his ideas from Antonio Meucci.
"Monday June 17, 2002
Italy hailed the redress of a historic injustice yesterday after the US
Congress recognised an impoverished Florentine immigrant as the inventor
of the telephone rather than Alexander Graham Bell.
Historians and Italian-Americans won their battle to persuade Washington
to recognise a little-known mechanical genius, Antonio Meucci, as a
father of modern communications, 113 years after his death.
The vote by the House of Representatives prompted joyous claims in
Meucci's homeland that finally Bell had been outed as a perfidious Scot
who found fortune and fame by stealing another man's work.
Calling the Italian's career extraordinary and tragic, the resolution
said his "teletrofono", demonstrated in New York in 1860, made him the
inventor of the telephone in the place of Bell, who had access to
Meucci's materials and who took out a patent 16 years later. "
> > > > the Airplane were not for the Wrights.
I doubt that as well. Richard Pearse of New Zealand achieved powered
flight almost a year before the Wright brothers.
"In 1899, Richard Pearse at the age of 22, was already building the all
important engine that would make it all happen. Fitted with two
cylinders, double acting pistons and stuffing box seals around the
connecting rods (as per steam engine) it fired both sides of the pistons
at both ends of the stroke, effectively making a four cylindar engine in
the space of a twin.
After many disappointments and crashes, he was soon achieving powered
takeoff flights of up to 50 metres. His first successful flight on 31
march 1903 predates the Wright Brothers flight by over eight months."
> > >
> > > Eletric light was invented at least three times.
> > >
> > > Johann Heinrich Hoebel built his light bulb in 1854.
> > >
> > > Edison patented his in 1879.
> > >
> > > And Osram built the first light bulb as we know it today in 1905.
> > >
> > > So who invented the light bulb, the man who made the first, the man who
> > > patented the idea, or the company that developed the concept we still
> > > use today?
> > >
> > > It's difficult, but I'd rule out Edison.
> > >
> >
> > Of course you would. You always reject every piece of evidence that
> > isn't exactly what you want it to be.
He would be right actually. Electric lights has been used for what? 50
years before Edison. And even then...
Joseph Swan demonstrated the same carbon filament lightbulb in Newcastle
at least ten months prior to Edison's announcement. In addition, Swan
received a British patent in 1878 for the same bulb that Edison patented
in the U. S. in 1879.
Swan sued Edison, and Edison lost in the British courts for infringement
of Swan's patent. As part of the settlement, Edison was forced to take
Swan in as a partner in his British electric works. The company was
called the Edison and Swan United Electric Company. Eventually, Edison
acquired all of Swan's interest in the company.
In the United States, Edison didn't have the chance to put up a fight.
The U.S. Patent Office had ruled on October 8, 1883 that Edison's
patents were based on the prior art of a man named William Sawyer and
were invalid. In addition, Swan had already sold his U.S. patent rights
to the Brush Electric Company in June of 1882.
Andrew J. Brehm
> Andrew J. Brehm wrote:
> [...]
> >
> > Edison's phonograph (1877) could only play for a minute, the media could
> > not be copied or playd more often than five times, and the sound quality
> > was horrible. (This is actually the dream device of the record
> > industry.)
> [...]
>
> HA! If I used a .sig, this would be it!
>
Indeed. :-)
--
haochi
Steve Hix <se...@mac.com> wrote:
Neither. A New Zealander managed to do both almost a year before the
Wright brothers.
> > "If God had meant Man to fly, He would have given us the Wright
> > brothers."
James C. Stutts
> In article <1fk22fd.1d940q718he8qmN%Lars.T...@epost.de>,
> Lars.T...@epost.de (Lars Träger) wrote:
>
>
>
>> > > > the Airplane were not for the Wrights.
>
>
> I doubt that as well. Richard Pearse of New Zealand achieved powered
> flight almost a year before the Wright brothers.
Many people achieved powered flight before the Wrights - Ader, Maxim, and
(maybe) Whitehead. What differed (although there is some debate over Whitehead)
was that the Wrights demonstrated CONTROLLED flight. Pearse himself credited the
Wrights with the first powered and controlled flight. That doesn't
detract from Pearse and the other early inventors, but a short
uncontrolled powered hop isn't quite the same thing as the first
controlled flight.
JCS
James C. Stutts
> In article <sehix-ACA968....@newsfeed.slurp.net>,
> Steve Hix <se...@mac.com> wrote:
<snip>
> Neither. A New Zealander managed to do both almost a year before the
> Wright brothers.
Not apparently according to the New Zealander in question. He apparently credited
the first controlled, powered, flight to the Wrights. Most controlled
flights do not end in crashes.
JCS
ed
haochi <nos...@nowhere.com> jotted:
not according to richard pearse...
--
-ed
C Lund
Woofbert <woofbe...@infernosoft.com> wrote:
>> Maybe not, but a large chunk of any given program can run on quite a
>> variety of hardware. Say you write a Mac program in C. The only parts of
>> that app that won't run on Windows are the parts with hardware specific
>> calls.
>Uh... I think you mean specific calls to the operating system.
My bad. You're right, of course. B)
--
C Lund, Oslo
http://www.notam02.no/~clund/
C Lund
"Edwin" <ze...@aiur.org> wrote:
>"C Lund" <christop...@NOSPAMchello.no> wrote in message
>news:christopher.lund-A6...@news01.chello.no...
>> In article <eodkqucl3p435fqfr...@4ax.com>,
>> Edwin <ze...@aiur.org> wrote:
>> >The fact that George disagrees with me doesn't make me wrong.
>> You're not wrong because he says you're wrong; you're wrong because
>> you're wrong. He (GG) just happened to be the one who told you you're
>> wrong - and explained why as well.
>Your empty assertions aren't worth the electrons it took to send them.
Yet they are worth more than the assertion you made (the quote at the
top).
>Edwin
Mike Dee
"Edwin" <ze...@aiur.org> wrote:
> "Mike Dee" <emte...@optushome.com.au> wrote in message
> news:aodquv$ln7f6$1...@ID-119983.news.dfncis.de...
> > In article <skdkqusgirv0cehr1...@4ax.com>,
> > Edwin <ze...@aiur.org> wrote:
> >
> > > On Mon, 14 Oct 2002 10:29:59 +1000, emte...@optushome.com.au (Mike
> > > Dee) wrote:
> > >
> > > >In article <kpsjqucqmnj1eh0kq...@4ax.com>, Edwin
> > > ><ze...@aiur.org> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> Mac advocates have long claimed that Windows was copied from the Mac
> > > >> OS.
> > > >
> > > >[massive rant and M$ shill propaganda snipped]
> > >
> > > That's your labels for a reasoned argument backed by facts?
> >
> > Who's fact are these?
>
> Click the links you snipped out. Read the quotes I gave.
Why? Propaganda links such as those are only worth snipping, not
clicking.
> >And, aren't they simply the "facts" you wish to
> > believe?
>
> You're attempting to project into me your Mac advoate desire to pick out
> only facts you like.
The only projection around here is your ugly mug in the mirror
> > > >Get a grip Edwin, you're losing it (again).
> > >
> > > There's no other way to say this: you're an imbecile, Mike.
> >
> > Thanks, I aim to please.
>
> You're welcome, doofus.
Anytime, Shill.
D.
Edwin
"C Lund" <christop...@NOSPAMchello.no> wrote in message
Tell yourself whatever it takes to make it through your day...
Edwin
Edwin
"Scott Higdon" <s.hi...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:s.higdon-714A40...@nntp.mindspring.com...
> In article <g4ikquglo7f3mrelm...@4ax.com>,
> Edwin <ze...@aiur.org> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 14 Oct 2002 00:03:36 -0400, Scott Higdon
> > <s.hi...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >
> > >In article <4tdkqu0vqm448snsj...@4ax.com>,
> > > Edwin <ze...@aiur.org> wrote:
> > >
> > >> On Sun, 13 Oct 2002 23:27:25 GMT, George Graves
<gmgr...@pacbell.net>
> > >> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> >In article <kpsjqucqmnj1eh0kq...@4ax.com>,
> > >> > Edwin <ze...@aiur.org> wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> >> Mac advocates have long claimed that Windows was copied from the
Mac
OS
> > >> >> was not a shell riding on top of DOS as Windows was. It becomes
even
> > >> >> sillier when one takes into account that the two operating systems
> > >> >> were written for different hardware, and so it would have been
> > >> >> impossible to make a direct copy.
> > >> >
fronts:
> > >> >
> > >> >(1) The fact that Windows was originally a GUI shell riding atop DOS
> > >> >(much of the luggage of which, it still retains, unfortunately) is
> > >> >irrelevant. The shell copied features popularized in the Mac such as
the
> > >> >mouse and icons to represent files.
> > >>
> > >> "Copied' implies they copied code. That's impossible for the
reasons
> > >> I gave. Ideas can't be patented or copyrighted, only implementations
> > >> of an idea can.
> > >
> > >Your average computer user doesn't sit there thinking about code. If he
> > >looks at a Mac desktop and a Windows desktop and thinks, "hey, these
> > >look awfully similar, I think somebody copied off of somebody else" he
> > >doesn't give two shits what the code looks like.
> >
> > It's the code that makes it a copy or not, what the average user
> > thinks of it notwithstanding.
>
> In this case, the code is less relevant because, as you say, Windows and
> Mac are different platforms.
That makes the code *more* relevant, because it must be written differently
for different platforms. You can't just copy Mac code and have it run in
Windows.
>That doesn't mean that Windows can't copy
> Mac.
Sure it does.
> Microsoft Word is a word processor. Appleworks is a word processor.
> DIfferent code. Same basic functions. What the user sees is what counts.
> And the user sees two typin' programs.
Yet neither is a copy of the other.
> >
> > >Say Stephen King writes a novel on his computer and I write the exact
> > >same novel on a typewriter. I will not be able to get away with telling
> > >the judge that I didn't copy him because I used a different tool.
> >
> > Good analogy. We look at the code of Windows, and the code of the
> > Mac, and we see the former is not a copy of the later. The judge
> > throws the case out (as he did when Apple sued MS).
>
> Nice job ignoring the analogy. That took effort.
I ignored nothing. As I said, your analogy supports my position.
Edwin
Edwin
> In article <aoegfi$ln2v5$1...@ID-56786.news.dfncis.de>,
> "Edwin" <ze...@aiur.org> wrote:
>
> > "Mike Dee" <emte...@optushome.com.au> wrote in message
> > news:aodquv$ln7f6$1...@ID-119983.news.dfncis.de...
> > > In article <skdkqusgirv0cehr1...@4ax.com>,
> > > Edwin <ze...@aiur.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Mon, 14 Oct 2002 10:29:59 +1000, emte...@optushome.com.au (Mike
> > > > Dee) wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >In article <kpsjqucqmnj1eh0kq...@4ax.com>, Edwin
> > > > ><ze...@aiur.org> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >> Mac advocates have long claimed that Windows was copied from the
Mac
> > > > >> OS.
> > > > >
> > > > >[massive rant and M$ shill propaganda snipped]
> > > >
> > > > That's your labels for a reasoned argument backed by facts?
> > >
> > > Who's fact are these?
> >
> > Click the links you snipped out. Read the quotes I gave.
>
> Why? Propaganda links such as those are only worth snipping, not
> clicking.
Anyone who clicks those links will see what an idiot you are.
> > >And, aren't they simply the "facts" you wish to
> > > believe?
> >
> > You're attempting to project into me your Mac advoate desire to pick out
> > only facts you like.
>
> The only projection around here is your ugly mug in the mirror
I have a shock for you: the mug you see in your mirror is your own. I
hope there are no sharp objects nearby...
> > > > >Get a grip Edwin, you're losing it (again).
> > > >
> > > > There's no other way to say this: you're an imbecile, Mike.
> > >
> > > Thanks, I aim to please.
> >
> > You're welcome, doofus.
>
> Anytime, Shill.
Heh... doofus...
Edwin
Peter Pediaditakis
> I was thanking you for proving me right about Apple not inventing the GUI,
> and MS not copying it from Apple.
The fact remains and I think few dispute that the GUI was birthed at
PARC. The fact that you went on a long spiel with very little logic,
look at your first paragraph, makes me wonder if you have an IQ that is
any better than par (100). GUI's do not rely on hardware, they are an
abstraction that sits on top of the OS. You have used computers for how
long? and you do not know this yet, hence I must assume that you really
are not very bright.
And my assessment of you is in all earnestness. I am certain that you
will reply with something akin to "I know you are but what am I" but
that would simply prove what a dullard you are.
--
Peter Pediaditakis
path...@mac.com
Peter Pediaditakis
Tim Smith <reply_i...@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
> Quit making up claims for
> your opponents.
Idiots always like to stuff words in the opponents mouth rather than
talk about what was actually stated. And Edwin is indeed a stupid
person with absolutely no life whatsoever. The volumes of writing that
he posts on this board is indicative of someone with nothing to do.
--
Peter Pediaditakis
path...@mac.com
Lars Träger
And on what evidence did you base that?
> > Joe, you've done i again.
> >
>
> Done what? Proven that Andrew doesn't know what he's talking about?
> That's easy.
No, making an ass of yourself by stating something that - whether true
or not - has little to do with the issue at hand and claiming that it
proves the other guy is wrong.
Lars T.
--
Zuse ruleZ
Woofbert
Peter Pediaditakis <path...@mac.com> wrote:
> In article <aoeiok$lhhaa$1...@ID-56786.news.dfncis.de>,
> "Edwin" <ze...@aiur.org> wrote:
>
> > I was thanking you for proving me right about Apple not inventing the GUI,
> > and MS not copying it from Apple.
Who claims Apple invented the GUI? Everyone knows that Xerox PARC wanted
a partner with whom to develop and sell their ideas, and chose Apple.
And from whom did MS copy their GUI if not Apple, who showed them how to
do it?
> The fact remains and I think few dispute that the GUI was birthed at
> PARC. The fact that you went on a long spiel with very little logic,
> look at your first paragraph, makes me wonder if you have an IQ that is
> any better than par (100). GUI's do not rely on hardware,
Uh, yes, they do. You have to have a high-performance graphics display
terminal and some kind of pointing device. An Osborne One would not be a
very good platform for writing a GUI ... if you hooked up a Tektronix
4010 it would be barely tolerable.
> they are an
> abstraction that sits on top of the OS.
That's true, too, of course.
> You have used computers for how
> long? and you do not know this yet, hence I must assume that you really
> are not very bright.
>
> And my assessment of you is in all earnestness. I am certain that you
> will reply with something akin to "I know you are but what am I" but
> that would simply prove what a dullard you are.
Hear, hear.
--
Woofbert, Chief Rocket Surgeon, Infernosoft
Now that Mac OS is based on Unix, does that mean we have to adopt the same
cutesy lame-ass plurali standarden as the rest of the Unix world?
Scott Higdon
"Edwin" <ze...@aiur.org> wrote:
No, YOU want it to make the code more relevant, because of your idiotic
postion that there can be no cross-platform ripping off.
>
> >That doesn't mean that Windows can't copy
> > Mac.
>
> Sure it does.
>
> > Microsoft Word is a word processor. Appleworks is a word processor.
> > DIfferent code. Same basic functions. What the user sees is what counts.
> > And the user sees two typin' programs.
>
> Yet neither is a copy of the other.
Ok, so MS Word for Mac is not actually MS Word. It's a completly new
program that they just decided to stick the name MS Word on. Nevermind
the fact that they look the same. Nevermind that they do the same
things. All that matters is the code that NOBODY CAN SEE!
There's no such thing as a port of a program.
You can't write the same program for 2 different platforms because the
code is different.
If I write MS Flight Simulator for Mac, MS will NOT sue me because the
code is different. It's not the same program, Mr. Gates! I swear!
Somebody better call all those software companies that write software
for both platforms and tell them that they can't actually do what
they've been doing for YEARS!
>
> > >
> > > >Say Stephen King writes a novel on his computer and I write the exact
> > > >same novel on a typewriter. I will not be able to get away with telling
> > > >the judge that I didn't copy him because I used a different tool.
> > >
> > > Good analogy. We look at the code of Windows, and the code of the
> > > Mac, and we see the former is not a copy of the later. The judge
> > > throws the case out (as he did when Apple sued MS).
> >
> > Nice job ignoring the analogy. That took effort.
>
> I ignored nothing. As I said, your analogy supports my position.
Ok, I take it back. You didn't ignore it. You just pretended that it
said what you wanted to.
Must be nice to live in your little fantasy world, Edwin.
>
> Edwin
>
>
--
Scott
Mike Dee
"Edwin" <ze...@aiur.org> wrote:
> "Mike Dee" <emte...@optushome.com.au> wrote in message
> news:aoh1lo$m9d6u$1...@ID-119983.news.dfncis.de...
> > In article <aoegfi$ln2v5$1...@ID-56786.news.dfncis.de>,
> > "Edwin" <ze...@aiur.org> wrote:
> >
> > > "Mike Dee" <emte...@optushome.com.au> wrote in message
> > > news:aodquv$ln7f6$1...@ID-119983.news.dfncis.de...
> > > > In article <skdkqusgirv0cehr1...@4ax.com>,
> > > > Edwin <ze...@aiur.org> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > On Mon, 14 Oct 2002 10:29:59 +1000, emte...@optushome.com.au (Mike
> > > > > Dee) wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > >In article <kpsjqucqmnj1eh0kq...@4ax.com>, Edwin
> > > > > ><ze...@aiur.org> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >> Mac advocates have long claimed that Windows was copied from the
> Mac
> > > > > >> OS.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >[massive rant and M$ shill propaganda snipped]
> > > > >
> > > > > That's your labels for a reasoned argument backed by facts?
> > > >
> > > > Who's fact are these?
> > >
> > > Click the links you snipped out. Read the quotes I gave.
> >
> > Why? Propaganda links such as those are only worth snipping, not
> > clicking.
>
> Anyone who clicks those links will see what an idiot you are.
Anyone (except Edwin) who clicks those links it will become immediately
apparent that somone has taken it upon themselves to re-write computing
history in favor of M$ and will see what an idiot you are.
> > > >And, aren't they simply the "facts" you wish to
> > > > believe?
> > >
> > > You're attempting to project into me your Mac advoate desire to pick out
> > > only facts you like.
> >
> > The only projection around here is your ugly mug in the mirror
>
> I have a shock for you: the mug you see in your mirror is your own. I
> hope there are no sharp objects nearby...
Gazing into your mirror, you will see there are no sharp objects nearby.
Only a dull-witted imbecile who comes across as the worlds largest fool
(hint; it's you, Edwin).
> > > > > >Get a grip Edwin, you're losing it (again).
> > > > >
> > > > > There's no other way to say this: you're an imbecile, Mike.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks, I aim to please.
> > >
> > > You're welcome, doofus.
> >
> > Anytime, Shill.
>
> Heh... doofus...
Mirror mirror upon the wall. Who's the biggest doofus of all? Why Edwin,
'tis Edwin the Shill, who is the biggest doofus of all.
ps, turn that &%$#*^!! OE-QF back on. This is getting out of hand
already.
D.
Steve Hix
haochi <nos...@nowhere.com> wrote:
Pearse, right? Off the ground 31 March, 1903...about 8 months.
Perhaps, I've not been able to find any decent data on the NZ
aircraft and its aerodynamics. From pictures I've seen, it looks
like it would have been very bad in yaw.
Pearse himself said that the Wrights probably deserved the credit for
being the first to make a controlled and sustained flight.
This was the sticky bit: combining enough power to fly, with
enough stability and controllability to do it safely and
repeatedly. (Well, the Wrights were waffling on stability, they
seemed to think that neutral or slightly negative stability
was the way to go. Perhaps it was their bicycle background, or
a remnant streak of Protestant work ethic speaking.)
Clement Ader, in France, clearly left the ground before the Wrights,
but his design was only marginally controllable, and at that on the
wrong side of the line. His Eole left the ground around 1890, but
was not controllable enough to make more than very short hops.
His last design, the Avion III was abandoned in 1897
Montgomery, in California, would have beat the Wrights by several
years, if he hadn't killed himself in a minor crash (a bolt penetrated
his head in an otherwise survivable crosh). His designs clearly had
good enough controllability and stability, he was waiting for an
engine.
Langley's Aerodrome failed on the control issue, but the gasoline
engine that Manley made for him would have permitted the Wrights to
fly for hours, if they'd had it. Langley's most successful model
was a steam-powered one that flew for about 1200m, but he never
built one that could carry a pilot. The engine was pretty slick,
small, light, and pretty good power output, but apparently not
scalable.
Mozhaiski, Lilienthal, Langley, Hargrave, Ader, Pearse, Chanute,
Wright...it was only a matter of time, and not much of that needed.
It's almost as if the airplane had decided it was time to be born.
Lawson English
news:pathos49-5405C8...@usenet.pitt.edu...
> In article <aoeiok$lhhaa$1...@ID-56786.news.dfncis.de>,
> "Edwin" <ze...@aiur.org> wrote:
>
> > I was thanking you for proving me right about Apple not inventing the
GUI,
> > and MS not copying it from Apple.
>
> The fact remains and I think few dispute that the GUI was birthed at
> PARC.
Well *I* dispute it.
The GUI's history goes waaaay back. If you ask Alan Kay, the human interface
guru at PARC when Jobs first visted it, if HE invented the GUI, he'll say,
and I quote, "short answer: no."
Someone on this newsgroup asked him directly at my suggestion a few years
ago since this particular bit of CUB (computer urban legend) is still quite
prevalent and no-one accepted my claim otherwise until Alan's response.
Alan had a an awful lot to do with the development of GUIs at PARC and the
Mac took a lot from the Smalltalk PARC work, but the initial impetus to
create a bitmapped graphics engine on the Mac was started by Jef Raskin over
Jobs' protests more than a year before Jobs went to PARC at Jef's request to
see what a mature, working "bitmapped graphics system with pointer
interface," looked like.
Raskin's initial Macintosh work was based on his 1967 Master's Thesis on a
[sorta] WYSIWYG graphics and printing engine, entitled "The Quick Draw
Graphics Engine." However, the gurus at PARC had funding that he never had
and independently developed and implemented their own, more sophisticated
system at PARC several years later. Raskin had actually visited PARC soon
after it first opened in the early 1970's, and was well-aware of the work
going on there. Of course, the roots of GUIs, mice, etc., go back at least
10-15 years before Raskin's work to work at DARPA, and other places as well.
Apple also didn't "steal" anything from PARC. All the interface elements
that were incorporated into the Mac GUI that came from the PARC visits were
licensed from XEROX. Part of the agreement involved allowing XEROX to
privately invest in Apple via purchase of a million dollars worth of stock
options that would now be worth hundreds of millions$. Another part was
requiring Apple to create a Smalltalk-80 implementation on the Mac (if
you've never seen it, BYTE magazine did an article on Smalltalk-80 more than
20 years ago -the GUI wasn't terribly much like the original Mac interface,
while the Windows 2.0 interface was an exact copy, in many ways (including
the number of horizontal lines in the window bar) of the original Mac
interface -Windows 2.0 was never released to the public that I'm aware of,
though you can still find photos of it in early user guides published before
Windows 2.0.2 (I think) was released to avoid the original threat of a
lawsuit).
Apple didn't strictly copy everything from PARC at that time, either. While
there WERE experimental drop-down menus being used at PARC during Jobs'
visits, he and his team never saw them and Bill Atkinson reinvented them on
his own. Atkinson even thought he'd seen what later became known in computer
graphics as "region handling" and invented and patented his own algorithms
to efficiently implement this non-existent feature of the original PARC
Smalltalk-80 system.
Through his human interface research at Apple, Raskin proved that
single-button mice were easier to use, at least for beginners, than
multi-button mice, and took out a patent on them (years later, Bruce Horn,
one of the original PARC researchers who moved to Apple after Raskin left,
pointed out that Douglas Englebart's original mouse had only one button, but
Raskin apparently had never seen it -nor had the US Patent office).
There was an exchange between Horn and Raskin published in this and other
newsgroups some years back. I'd like to think that I got the ball rolling by
posting some AOL emails that Raskin and I exchanged years ago on the
subject. Bruce Horn apparently noted them and published some corrections and
commentary and he and Raskin got into a public discussion about what was
what in the history of the Mac, mice, and GUIs.
Don't know if they're still available in any of the archives. Be very sad if
they were lost. They're part of the history of computers, IMHO.
Bottom line is that the GUI has a long, long history that predates Apple,
PARC, Raskin, Kay, etc, and goes back almost to the dawn of the computer
age.
Incidentally, if you want to see what Alan Kay and others are doing these
days in the area of ease-of-use GUIs and ease-of-use programming, check out
Squeak (a modern, Smalltalk that goes waaaay beyond Smalltalk-80 in many
ways, including an entirely new model for interfaces).
http://www.squeak.org
http://www.squeakland.org
Squeak is even more cross-platform that Java and most Squeak code runs
unchanged on every major platform, including MacOS 8+, MacOS X, Windows
95/98/etc, Linux, and quite a few others as well.
Sandman
"Lawson English" <engl...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> > The fact remains and I think few dispute that the GUI was birthed at
> > PARC.
>
> Well *I* dispute it.
>
> The GUI's history goes waaaay back. If you ask Alan Kay, the human interface
> guru at PARC when Jobs first visted it, if HE invented the GUI, he'll say,
> and I quote, "short answer: no."
>
> Someone on this newsgroup asked him directly at my suggestion a few years
> ago since this particular bit of CUB (computer urban legend) is still quite
> prevalent and no-one accepted my claim otherwise until Alan's response.
It was I who mailed and asked Alan Kay, which responded with the "short
answer: no".
It is important here to take a brake from absolutism and realise that
everything is preceeded by SOMETHING. Nothing is invented out of thin air a
monday afternoon.
And when you talk about GUI's, you are going to have to say "stop"
somewhere along the backtracking, otherwise you'll find yourself back at
the invention of the wheel and fire before you know it.
Now, Alan is prone to say "no" to that question just because he doesn't
want to draw the line at himself, but want to give credit to whatever
preceeded his ideas. This is a natural thing to do, rather than just say
"Yeah, I did it, it was all me".
But you and I have to draw the line somewhere, and I would like to just say
that I think that there are more than one line when one is talking about
the invention of the GUI.
It's like 3D games. Some people say that Wolfenstein 3D was the first 3D
game, but others claim it is Quake. And it's all a matter of definitions.
What is 3D? Is sprites that are resized relatively to distance really 3D?
Does everything need to be fully modeled and textured to be true 3D?
GUI invention works the same way. What is a GUI? At what part in the
history can we say that "This, this is the ancestor to the modern GUI"
without going back to the wheel and fire?
I'd say when it first was implemented and used. then the Xerox Star was the
first to sport a GUI. I can also say that it was the first that featured
the base we take for granted and is found in most GUI's today., then it's
Apple.
If you use a Star, you'll notice that it resembles todays GUI, but more
like a distant cousin than it's parent. If you use the first MacOS, you
will recognize just about every GUI element found in todays computers.
And in the end, it's a matter of how much semantics you would want to
inject into the issue. It's commonly said that "Apple invented the GUI" for
the reasons above, even though that isn't semantically correct. just like
the Vectrex featured 3D games long before Wolfenstein 3D.
It is, however, commonly said in this group that Xerox indeed invented the
GUI (i.e. Alan Kay), at the same time that we all claim that Apple should
be given credit for every GUI implementation we see these days.
But really, it was the neanderthals who invented the GUI... it started with
the fire... :-D
--
Sandman[.net]
Gregory L. Hansen
Sandman <m...@sandman.net> wrote:
>In article <aojem2$l02$1...@slb6.atl.mindspring.net>,
> "Lawson English" <engl...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>> > The fact remains and I think few dispute that the GUI was birthed at
>> > PARC.
>>
>> Well *I* dispute it.
>>
>> The GUI's history goes waaaay back. If you ask Alan Kay, the human interface
>> guru at PARC when Jobs first visted it, if HE invented the GUI, he'll say,
>> and I quote, "short answer: no."
>>
>> Someone on this newsgroup asked him directly at my suggestion a few years
>> ago since this particular bit of CUB (computer urban legend) is still quite
>> prevalent and no-one accepted my claim otherwise until Alan's response.
>
>It was I who mailed and asked Alan Kay, which responded with the "short
>answer: no".
>
>It is important here to take a brake from absolutism and realise that
>everything is preceeded by SOMETHING. Nothing is invented out of thin air a
>monday afternoon.
Funny how this parallels the airplane thread. Humans have been dreaming
of flight since they first noticed birds, and then all sorts of names
became associated with powered flight at about the time that small,
high-output engines became available. The radio was invented shortly
after wave solutions were found to Maxwell's equations, which were
themselves an organized presentation of experimental work that goes far
back. But historians and people want to attach the name of a Great Man as
the originator of anything worth originating.
And probably people have been dreaming of a GUI on a computer from the
moment someone wanted to be able to just point to a peice of data on the
screen instead of entering a line and row number or typing a filename or
something on the command line, and pointer-driven painting programs
existed before pointer-driven user shells did. I've seen programs with
pointer-driven interfaces on the ASCII text screen -- not exactly a
"graphical" user interface but something like it.
The Xerox Star, I think, was the first computer with an all-purpose
graphical interface, devoid of a command line even for working with the
file system. That was new.
--
"A nice adaptation of conditions will make almost any hypothesis agree
with the phenomena. This will please the imagination but does not advance
our knowledge." -- J. Black, 1803.
Sandman
glha...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu (Gregory L. Hansen) wrote:
> >It was I who mailed and asked Alan Kay, which responded with the "short
> >answer: no".
> >
> >It is important here to take a brake from absolutism and realise that
> >everything is preceeded by SOMETHING. Nothing is invented out of thin air a
> >monday afternoon.
>
> Funny how this parallels the airplane thread. Humans have been dreaming
> of flight since they first noticed birds, and then all sorts of names
> became associated with powered flight at about the time that small,
> high-output engines became available. The radio was invented shortly
> after wave solutions were found to Maxwell's equations, which were
> themselves an organized presentation of experimental work that goes far
> back. But historians and people want to attach the name of a Great Man as
> the originator of anything worth originating.
>
> And probably people have been dreaming of a GUI on a computer from the
> moment someone wanted to be able to just point to a peice of data on the
> screen instead of entering a line and row number or typing a filename or
> something on the command line, and pointer-driven painting programs
> existed before pointer-driven user shells did. I've seen programs with
> pointer-driven interfaces on the ASCII text screen -- not exactly a
> "graphical" user interface but something like it.
>
> The Xerox Star, I think, was the first computer with an all-purpose
> graphical interface, devoid of a command line even for working with the
> file system. That was new.
Absolutely.
--
Sandman[.net]
Edwin
Idiotic position? Why don't you take code for a Motorola processor and run
it on an Intel processor, and come back and report your results?
> >
> > >That doesn't mean that Windows can't copy
> > > Mac.
> >
> > Sure it does.
> >
> > > Microsoft Word is a word processor. Appleworks is a word processor.
> > > DIfferent code. Same basic functions. What the user sees is what
counts.
> > > And the user sees two typin' programs.
> >
> > Yet neither is a copy of the other.
>
> Ok, so MS Word for Mac is not actually MS Word. It's a completly new
> program that they just decided to stick the name MS Word on.
Yes!
> Nevermind
> the fact that they look the same. Nevermind that they do the same
> things.
Yes, nevermind that.
> All that matters is the code that NOBODY CAN SEE!
Right! All that matters in copying programs is the code, not the opinions
of lay persons looking at the screen.
> There's no such thing as a port of a program.
You think the first version of Mac OS was ported to DOS 1 or DOS 2?
> You can't write the same program for 2 different platforms because the
> code is different.
We're not just talking about a "program," we're talking about an operating
system. That what sits between the programs and the hardware, and parcels
out resources. It matters what hardware you stick under it. You can't just
copy the OS from one set of hardware to another set of hardware.
> If I write MS Flight Simulator for Mac, MS will NOT sue me because the
> code is different. It's not the same program, Mr. Gates! I swear!
You honestly don't see any difference between copying the appearence of a
game and copying an OS?
There are several different flight simulator programs, BTW. Do you want to
cal them all copies of each other?
> Somebody better call all those software companies that write software
> for both platforms and tell them that they can't actually do what
> they've been doing for YEARS!
Why don't you make the call?
> >
> > > >
> > > > >Say Stephen King writes a novel on his computer and I write the
exact
> > > > >same novel on a typewriter. I will not be able to get away with
telling
> > > > >the judge that I didn't copy him because I used a different tool.
> > > >
> > > > Good analogy. We look at the code of Windows, and the code of the
> > > > Mac, and we see the former is not a copy of the later. The judge
> > > > throws the case out (as he did when Apple sued MS).
> > >
> > > Nice job ignoring the analogy. That took effort.
> >
> > I ignored nothing. As I said, your analogy supports my position.
>
> Ok, I take it back. You didn't ignore it. You just pretended that it
> said what you wanted to.
>
> Must be nice to live in your little fantasy world, Edwin.
Does projecting your traits into me help to soothe your dark soul?
Edwin
Edwin
> In article <aoehmh$lmj3o$1...@ID-56786.news.dfncis.de>,
> "Edwin" <ze...@aiur.org> wrote:
>
> > > > Mac advocates have long claimed that Windows was copied from the Mac
OS.
> > > > It's a ridiculous notion when one stops to consider that Mac OS was
not
> > > > a shell riding on top of DOS as Windows was.
> > >
> > > underlying OS structure. :-D
> >
> > Did you ever hear the phrase "form follows function?"
>
> Did you ever hear the phrase "insanity follows Edwin"? :)
Only while you're following me.
> > > > It becomes even sillier when one takes into account that the two
> > > > operating systems were written for different hardware, and so it
would
> > > > have been impossible to make a direct copy.
> > >
> > > It is a well known fact that Microsoft actually copied the -CODE- from
> > > Apple to make Windows. They used industrial espionage to gain access
to
> > > the code which they then recompiled for Intel and called "Windows".
> >
> > Tim Smith ought to thank you. You've repeated what he says he never
saw
> > anyone claim.
> >
> > Your retelling of that nonsense goes a step beyond, with its "industrial
> > espionange" fantasy. Good job, Sandman.
>
> Yeah, I have it from a reliable source that Bill Gates actually dressed up
> as a woman and went on a date with Steve Jobs, who had the code for MacOS
> in his wallet. Bill snatched the wallet and ran away in high heels in the
> moonlit night.
Since when did you become a "reliable source?"
> > > Edwin, you are WAY to easy to smack around these days.
> >
> > Please confine your Sado-Masochistic fantasies to your gay lovers.
Thank
> > you.
>
> *smack* *smack* *smack* It's so easy that it's not even fun. :)
Sandman is spanking his monkey again. Ewww!
Edwin
Edwin
"George Graves" <gmgr...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:gmgraves-0CD534...@newssvr14-ext.news.prodigy.com...
> In article <aoesqa$lnfis$1...@ID-56786.news.dfncis.de>,
> "Edwin" <ze...@aiur.org> wrote:
>
> > "George Graves" <gmgr...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
> > news:gmgraves-641648...@newssvr13-ext.news.prodigy.com...
> > > In article <aoeiok$lhhaa$1...@ID-56786.news.dfncis.de>,
> > > "Edwin" <ze...@aiur.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > > > Hello Edwin! Your lesson starts here:
> > > >
> > > > Sandman's lesson on how to ignore facts and revise history.
> > > >
> > > > > April 1973
> > > > > The first operational Alto computer is finnished in Xerox
PARC. It
> > > > > features a three-button mouse, a bitmap display and graphical
> > > > "windows".
> > > >
> > > > So we see that Apple did NOT invent the GUI.
> > >
> > > I don't remember ANYONE ever saying that they did.
> >
> > Danm, that is the oldest Mac advocate trick in the book: when you prove
> > them wrong, they can't remember having made the wrong statements!
> >
> > > > > June 1981
> > > > > Xerox introduces the Star, the successor to the Alto. It
features
> > > > > double-clickable icons, overlapping windows, dialog boxes and
a
> > > > > 1024x768 monochrome display
> > > > > http://sandman.net/gui/bigstar.jpg
> > > >
> > > > 1982 Comdex:
> > > >
> > > > VisiOn is introduced as the first GUI for the PC, and inspires Bill
> > Gates.
> > > > Note that it predates the Lisa and the Mac.
> > > >
> > > > http://members.fortunecity.com/pcmuseum/windows.htm
> > >
> > > Introduced doesn't mean 'shipped.' Jobs "introduced" OSX in 1999 at a
> > > Mac show. It didn't ship until April 2001.
> > >
> > > > > January 1983
> > > > > Apple introduces Lisa. Features menu bars and pulldown menus.
> > > > > http://sandman.net/gui/biglisa.jpg
> > > > >
> > > > > April 1983
> > > > > VisiCorp releases VisiOn, the first graphical interface for
IBM
> > PCs,
> > > > > features overlapping windows but lacks icons and has no mouse
> > support.
> > > > > http://sandman.net/gui/visionwin.jpg
> > > > >
> > > > > November 1983
> > > > > Microsoft ANNOUNCES Windows 1.0, and claims that it will have
> > > > > overlapping windows
> > > > >
> > > > > January 1984
> > > > > Apple introduces the Macintosh, with it's fully operational
> > graphical
> > > > > interface with dialog boxes, menues, folders, icons and so on.
> > > > > http://sandman.net/gui/bigmac1.gif
> > > > >
> > > > > June 1984
> > > > > MIT announces "X Windows System" for their VAXen stations.
> > > > >
> > > > > September 1984
> > > > > Digital research releases GEM for 8086 and DOS-based
computers. It
> > was
> > > > > later ported to Aari ST. This is the second company to release
a
> > GUI
> > > > for
> > > > > the PC without Microsoft managing to get anything about.
> > > > > http://sandman.net/gui/biggem1.gif
> > > > >
> > > > > February 1985
> > > > > GEOS released for Commodore 64 and later to the Apple II.
> > > > >
> > > > > July 1985
> > > > > Commodore introduces the Amiga 1000 with the Amiga Workbench
1.0
> > > > > http://sandman.net/gui/wb_10.gif
> > > > >
> > > > > August 1985
> > > > > Microsoft FINALLY releases Windows 1.0. Windows cannot be
> > overlapped
> > > > > and they cannot cover an area at the bottom of the screen
reserved
> > for
> > > > > "iconzed" programs
> > > > > http://sandman.net/gui/bigw101.gif
> > > > >
> > > > > You're welcome.
> > > >
> > > > I was thanking you for proving me right about Apple not inventing
the
> > GUI,
> > > > and MS not copying it from Apple.
> > >
> >
> > Yes they did! ZnU even went so far to claim Dr. Alan Kay did not
invent
> > the GUI, Apple did!
> >
> > >there's no
> > > contest there, but MS DID copy the ideas used in Apple's
implementation
> > > of the GUI, first in Win 3.0, then even more in Win 95. But look how
> > > long it took them to get there! Why is that Edwin?
> >
> > The ideas that MS "copied" did not originate with Apple. You're
> > "contending" that Apple invented the GUI right after telling us "nobody"
> > ever did that!
>
> Edwin. There are other GUIs using other conventions than Apple's. Apple
> invented a set of GUI conventions that MS adopted. I say that they did
> this because no GUI BEFORE the Lisa used them. They are: click to
> select, double-click to launch, and click-drag to move. Since every
> Windows GUI since Win 3.0 has used these conventions, they came from
> Apple. But there were clearly GUIs to one extent or another BEFORE
> Apple, thus Apple cannot be said to have invented the concept of the
> Graphical User Interface. Clearer now?
What's clear is that you're making things up. Have you used all those
other GUIs? How do you suppose they selected screen items without clicking
on them?
Are you accusing everyone who had a GUI of copying Apple? AmigaDOS sure as
hell had click to select, double click to launch, and click-drag to move.
Edwin
Edwin
"Tim Adams" <tea...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:teadams-23E42F...@netnews.attbi.com...
> In article <aoesqa$lnfis$1...@ID-56786.news.dfncis.de>,
> "Edwin" <ze...@aiur.org> wrote:
>
> > "George Graves" <gmgr...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
> > news:gmgraves-641648...@newssvr13-ext.news.prodigy.com...
> > > In article <aoeiok$lhhaa$1...@ID-56786.news.dfncis.de>,
> > > "Edwin" <ze...@aiur.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > > "Sandman" <m...@sandman.net> wrote in message
> > > > news:mr-314F3F.09...@news.fu-berlin.de...
> > > > > Hello Edwin! Your lesson starts here:
> > > >
> > > > Sandman's lesson on how to ignore facts and revise history.
> > > >
> > > > > April 1973
> > > > > The first operational Alto computer is finnished in Xerox
PARC. It
> > > > > features a three-button mouse, a bitmap display and graphical
> > > > "windows".
> > > >
> > > > So we see that Apple did NOT invent the GUI.
> > >
> > > I don't remember ANYONE ever saying that they did.
> >
> > Danm, that is the oldest Mac advocate trick in the book: when you prove
> > them wrong, they can't remember having made the wrong statements!
>
> proving you wrong. Do a shore search on Google and find the quotes that
> show we've claimed Apple invented the GUI.
A time-worn Mac advocate trick rears its ugly head once again: demand proof
for what they damn well know happened.
Edwin
Flip
"Edwin" <ze...@aiur.org> wrote:
If you're so sure it happened, you shouldn't have any problem proving it.
Edwin
You're the idiot, Mike, and you're a liar as well. That site was NOT set
up to "re-write [sic] computing history in favor of M$ [sic]," it was set up
to show alternatives to Windows. If anything, it was set up to slam
Windows (no pun intended).
Again, click the links to see what a fool you've made of yourself (as
usual).
> > > > >And, aren't they simply the "facts" you wish to
> > > > > believe?
> > > >
> > > > You're attempting to project into me your Mac advoate desire to pick
out
> > > > only facts you like.
> > >
> > > The only projection around here is your ugly mug in the mirror
> >
> > I have a shock for you: the mug you see in your mirror is your own. I
> > hope there are no sharp objects nearby...
>
> Gazing into your mirror, you will see there are no sharp objects nearby.
> Only a dull-witted imbecile who comes across as the worlds largest fool
> (hint; it's you, Edwin).
That mirror you see is yours not mine. There's no way for you to see my
mirror.
> > > > > > >Get a grip Edwin, you're losing it (again).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > There's no other way to say this: you're an imbecile, Mike.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks, I aim to please.
> > > >
> > > > You're welcome, doofus.
> > >
> > > Anytime, Shill.
> >
> > Heh... doofus...
>
> Mirror mirror upon the wall. Who's the biggest doofus of all? Why Edwin,
> 'tis Edwin the Shill, who is the biggest doofus of all.
Again, that's your mirror on your wall, not mine.
> ps, turn that &%$#*^!! OE-QF back on. This is getting out of hand
> already.
Nope. Heh! Doofus!
Edwin
Scott Higdon
"Edwin" <ze...@aiur.org> wrote:
The opinion of the layperson is less relevant than the functions of the
program or OS. The way you're talking, you sound like you believe that
computers running different processors aren't capable of performing
similar if not identical functions. After all, they can't use the same
code!
>
> > There's no such thing as a port of a program.
>
> You think the first version of Mac OS was ported to DOS 1 or DOS 2?
>
> > You can't write the same program for 2 different platforms because the
> > code is different.
>
> We're not just talking about a "program," we're talking about an operating
> system. That what sits between the programs and the hardware, and parcels
> out resources. It matters what hardware you stick under it. You can't just
> copy the OS from one set of hardware to another set of hardware.
Is not an operating system just a very large program? They're called
analogies, numbnuts.
>
> > If I write MS Flight Simulator for Mac, MS will NOT sue me because the
> > code is different. It's not the same program, Mr. Gates! I swear!
>
> You honestly don't see any difference between copying the appearence of a
> game and copying an OS?
It's a difference of degree, really.
>
> There are several different flight simulator programs, BTW. Do you want to
> cal them all copies of each other?
>
> > Somebody better call all those software companies that write software
> > for both platforms and tell them that they can't actually do what
> > they've been doing for YEARS!
>
> Why don't you make the call?
>
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >Say Stephen King writes a novel on his computer and I write the
> exact
> > > > > >same novel on a typewriter. I will not be able to get away with
> telling
> > > > > >the judge that I didn't copy him because I used a different tool.
> > > > >
> > > > > Good analogy. We look at the code of Windows, and the code of the
> > > > > Mac, and we see the former is not a copy of the later. The judge
> > > > > throws the case out (as he did when Apple sued MS).
> > > >
> > > > Nice job ignoring the analogy. That took effort.
> > >
> > > I ignored nothing. As I said, your analogy supports my position.
> >
> > Ok, I take it back. You didn't ignore it. You just pretended that it
> > said what you wanted to.
> >
> > Must be nice to live in your little fantasy world, Edwin.
>
> Does projecting your traits into me help to soothe your dark soul?
>
> Edwin
>
>
I don't know the regulars here can stand to argue with you for so long,
Edwin. You're like a brick wall. And I mean that in the nicest way, of
course.
--
Scott
Sandman
> > So, if you think you're able to, why don't you do what we do when
> > proving you wrong. Do a shore search on Google and find the quotes that
> > show we've claimed Apple invented the GUI.
>
> A time-worn Mac advocate trick rears its ugly head once again: demand proof
> for what they damn well know happened.
..and something you can't provide a quote for. This is fun :)
--
Sandman[.net]
George Graves
"Edwin" <ze...@aiur.org> wrote:
That's clear, Is it? I worked at PARC in the early eighties. I used both
the Alto and the Star system. I bought an Amiga for another company for
which I worked to do video productions, So I have used Workspace as well.
So, yes, I have 'played with' many of these other systems, and seen the
rest. I also worked at a company where everyone used a Lisa.
Now, on to your other allegations. Did I say that no one 'clicked'
before the Mac? No, I did not. I said that Apple used three conventions
in tandem: Click to select, Double-click to launch, Clock-drag to move.
Every other GUI since the Lisa adopted those conventions. They clearly
came from Apple. The Xerox System (called the Alto, later the Star)
used symbols lined up in a row on the right side of a page-shapped
screen to represent various document types. You clicked on them to
select them, AFTER you opened the applications with a command selected
from a tab menu. Then you selected "open" from the pull-down menu in the
app and the selected document would open. There was no click-and-drag,
and no double click. The mouse was merely used to select things and
access menus. In applications the mouse allowed for navigation similar
to the way they still work today.
>
> Are you accusing everyone who had a GUI of copying Apple?
Its not an accusation, its more or less a fact. I wouldn't go so far as
call it "copying" in any nefarious sense, its more a case of following
Apple's leader, because everyone recognized that Apple's implementation
of the GUI was a work of genius and probabaly the most effective way to
design a GUI. It still is.
> AmigaDOS sure as
> hell had click to select, double click to launch, and click-drag to move.
Yep. They got it from the Lisa.
--
George Graves
"Outside of a dog, a book is probably a man's best friend.
Inside of a dog, its too dark to read."
Groucho Marx
Sandman
"Edwin" <ze...@aiur.org> wrote:
> > > > And we all know that the similarities of GUI's are judged on the
> > > > underlying OS structure. :-D
> > >
> > > Did you ever hear the phrase "form follows function?"
> >
> > Did you ever hear the phrase "insanity follows Edwin"? :)
>
> Only while you're following me.
I'm flattered that I am the subject of your paranoia, and relieved that I
live in Sweden.
> > > > > It becomes even sillier when one takes into account that the two
> > > > > operating systems were written for different hardware, and so it
> > > > > would have been impossible to make a direct copy.
> > > >
> > > > It is a well known fact that Microsoft actually copied the -CODE-
> > > > from Apple to make Windows. They used industrial espionage to gain
> > > > access to the code which they then recompiled for Intel and called
> > > > "Windows".
> > >
> > > Tim Smith ought to thank you. You've repeated what he says he
> > > never saw anyone claim.
> > >
> > > Your retelling of that nonsense goes a step beyond, with its
> > > "industrial espionange" fantasy. Good job, Sandman.
> >
> > Yeah, I have it from a reliable source that Bill Gates actually
> > dressed up as a woman and went on a date with Steve Jobs, who had the
> > code for MacOS in his wallet. Bill snatched the wallet and ran away in
> > high heels in the moonlit night.
>
> Since when did you become a "reliable source?"
No, really, it's true!
> > > > Edwin, you are WAY to easy to smack around these days.
> > >
> > > Please confine your Sado-Masochistic fantasies to your gay lovers.
> > > Thank you.
> >
> > *smack* *smack* *smack* It's so easy that it's not even fun. :)
>
> Sandman is spanking his monkey again. Ewww!
Hey, stop fantasizing about being my "monkey". That's just -weird- man!
--
Sandman[.net]
George Graves
"Lawson English" <engl...@mindspring.com> wrote:
Thanks for the timeline and the clarification of who did what. Some of
this I knew, some I didn't (and Edwin knew none of it). My only
contention here is that every modern GUI can trace its history back to
the Apple Lisa. Apple didn't INVENT the idea of the GUI, but they went
further toward making a coherent and fully integrated system than anyone
before them and most who came after.
George Graves
glha...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu (Gregory L. Hansen) wrote:
The main thing that the Star added to the earlier Xerox Alto system was
a real graphical file manager. It was quite a breakthrough.
Tim Adams
It 'damn well happened' in you mind perhaps. To bad your search of
google found nothing but perhaps your ranting..
>
> Edwin
>
>
Jim Lee Jr.
Edwin wrote:
Sandman is spanking his monkey again. Ewww!
>
> Edwin
Eddie, I hope you did not get a boner watching him.
Jim
Lawson English
[...]
> Thanks for the timeline and the clarification of who did what. Some of
> this I knew, some I didn't (and Edwin knew none of it). My only
> contention here is that every modern GUI can trace its history back to
> the Apple Lisa. Apple didn't INVENT the idea of the GUI, but they went
> further toward making a coherent and fully integrated system than anyone
> before them and most who came after.
I don't think that that is quite accurate either. Byte's article on
Smalltalk-80 came out before the Lisa was released. Certainly the Lisa was
the first [almost] affordable GUI computer, but people had a chance to see
screenshots of the Smalltalk system before the Lisa was released.
Also, Smalltalk-based GUIs have always been far, FAR more integrated than
the Mac in all its incarnations from MacOS 0.1 to MacOS X.2.x.
Lawson English
> In article <aojque$csu$1...@rainier.uits.indiana.edu>,
> glha...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu (Gregory L. Hansen) wrote:
> > The Xerox Star, I think, was the first computer with an all-purpose
> > graphical interface, devoid of a command line even for working with the
> > file system. That was new.
>
>
> The main thing that the Star added to the earlier Xerox Alto system was
> a real graphical file manager. It was quite a breakthrough.
>
But a "command line" is ALWAYS available on all Smalltalk-based systems. The
entire OS is "scripted" in the Smalltalk language and you can examine and
modify the "script" while the display is running. As an example of how neat
this is, look at Squeak's built-in web-browser. You can examine the
object-oriented "contents" of the browser window while the browser is
running -not just the html that gave rise to the contents.
Edwin
It is the mistaken opinion of lay persons that says Windows is a copy of Mac
OS.
> The way you're talking, you sound like you believe that
> computers running different processors aren't capable of performing
> similar if not identical functions. After all, they can't use the same
> code!
Wrong. I'm saying two computers *can* do the same functions without copying
each others code. Functions can't be copied, only was to impliment those
functions.
> >
> > > There's no such thing as a port of a program.
> >
> > You think the first version of Mac OS was ported to DOS 1 or DOS 2?
> >
> > > You can't write the same program for 2 different platforms because the
> > > code is different.
> >
> > We're not just talking about a "program," we're talking about an
operating
> > system. That what sits between the programs and the hardware, and
parcels
> > out resources. It matters what hardware you stick under it. You can't
just
> > copy the OS from one set of hardware to another set of hardware.
>
> Is not an operating system just a very large program?
No, it much more than that.
> They're called analogies, numbnuts.
They're called false analogies, fsckhead.
> >
> > > If I write MS Flight Simulator for Mac, MS will NOT sue me because the
> > > code is different. It's not the same program, Mr. Gates! I swear!
> >
> > You honestly don't see any difference between copying the appearence of
a
> > game and copying an OS?
>
> It's a difference of degree, really.
The degree of your unflinching stupidity?
I have agreed with others here, and even admitted to being wrong.
But I'll never given in to false analogies or Mac Zealot propaganda. Sorry
about that.
Edwin
Edwin
> In article <4tdkqu0vqm448snsj...@4ax.com>,
> Edwin <ze...@aiur.org> wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 13 Oct 2002 23:27:25 GMT, George Graves <gmgr...@pacbell.net>
> >
> > >In article <kpsjqucqmnj1eh0kq...@4ax.com>,
> > > Edwin <ze...@aiur.org> wrote:
> > >
> > >> Mac advocates have long claimed that Windows was copied from the Mac
> > >> was not a shell riding on top of DOS as Windows was. It becomes even
> > >> sillier when one takes into account that the two operating systems
> > >> were written for different hardware, and so it would have been
> > >> impossible to make a direct copy.
> > >
> > >
> > >(1) The fact that Windows was originally a GUI shell riding atop DOS
> > >(much of the luggage of which, it still retains, unfortunately) is
> > >irrelevant. The shell copied features popularized in the Mac such as
the
> > >mouse and icons to represent files.
> >
> > "Copied' implies they copied code. That's impossible for the reasons
> > I gave. Ideas can't be patented or copyrighted, only implementations
> > of an idea can.
>
> copy because I didn't use the same paint he did? And Ideas most
> assuredly can be copyrighted. Its called intellectual property.
A particular picture can be copyrighted, not the idea of making pictures.
Likewise the idea of putting menus and icons on a computer screen can not be
copyrighted, only the code that does it, and perhaps the specific screen
appearance.
> > The ideas of the mouse and the icon didn't originate with Apple, and
> > it was Windows that "popularized" them, by putting them in more
> > people's hands than Apple ever did.
>
> But long after Apple did it. By sheer numbers, yes, but Apple had the
> idea first
No they didn't. Those ideas go back to university work don't in the 60's.
They were also embodied in work that came out before the Mac, and around the
time of the Mac's launch. Are you trying to say that all those people
copied what they were doing from Apple? Even VisiOn?
>and it so impressed Bill Gates that he told his programmers
> "Make it like the Mac.
Did you forget the VisiOn demostration that Bill Gates flew his people in to
see? The one at the 1982 Comdex that he sat through three times himself?
That is what inspired Windows.
> I want Windows to be like the Mac" It took 'em 10
> years, but eventually they got something similar to the Mac. Just not as
> good. It still isn't.
A nice bit of Maccie propaganda.
> > >(2) Today, there are a number X-Windowing GUI shells which work over
> > >Linux and other forms of Unix. These shells are unabashed copies of
> > >Windows. Yet Windows is no longer a DOS shell, but a full GUI featured
> > >OS. Does then mean that the virtual copy of Windows graphical
interface,
> > >is not a copy because X-Windows is a shell?
> >
> > See above
>
> Tells me nothing Edwin.
You can lead a horse to water...
> > >(3) The hardware is also irrelevant.
> >
> > No it's not. Code can not be copied for hardware it won't run on.
>
> Code is irrelvant.
Nonsense. Code is what is copyrighted and patented.
> Look and feel is relevant.
The U.S. legal system disagrees.
> > >The aforementioned Unix with its
> > >X-Windowing and Windows-like GUI shell is totally architecture portable
> > >and will run equally on x86 architecture,
> >
> > You seem to think anything that draws a box on the screen is the same
> > thing!
>
> No, I don't, but Microsoft clearly does.
Nope. They had to write their own code to do it. Code copied from a Mac
won't do the job.
> > > PPC architecture, DEC Alpha,
> > >SUN, IBM, and a number of other platforms, all of which, I believe,
have
> > >different hardware configurations. These shells *LOOK* like Windows 98
> > >on all of them.
> >
> > Yet none of them do it the way Windows does it, therefore none are
> > copies.
>
> The look and feel like Windows - on purpose.
Irrelevant. Note the lack of lawsuits.
> > >> A favorite assertion of Maccies is that "we'd all be using DOS now if
> > >> it weren't for Apple."
> > >
> > >While I won't go that far
> >
> > Many of your fellow Maccies did.
> >
> > > (Its like saying that we wouldn't have the
> > >electric light or the phonograph were it not for Edison, The telephone
> > >were it not for Bell, and the Airplane were not for the Wrights. Good
> > >ideas appear when the time is right for them as is witnessed by the
fact
> > >that at least two other people had the idea for the telephone at
> > >preceisly the same time as Bell),
> >
> > Yes, I agree.
> >
> > > I will say that Apple took the first
> > >step to popularize the concept and to show that a GUI took the computer
> > >to a whole new level of accessibility.
> >
> > I disagree with that. Whatever Apple did was sold at premium prices
> > to the elite few. Go to the page I referenced in my first post to see
> > the systems that truly "popularized the GUI" and "took the computer to
> > a whole new level of accessibility."
>
> That's not relevant either. Gates clearly and unabashedly wanted Windows
> to be like the Mac and said so - more than once.
> >
> > > If Apple hadn't done it, surely
> > >someone else would have,
> >
> > Someone else did do it, and they did it *before* Apple did!
>
> No, they didn't. Windows 1.0 didn't ship until 1985 - over a year after
> the Mac came out.
Vision did ship before the Mac. It was shown at the 1982 Comdex, and
shipped in 1983. Many others shipped in 1985, which means they were under
development before the Mac launched. You're trying to limit this to MS and
Apple, when there were a host of others working on GUI systems.
> > > but the point is Apple DID do it first in a
> > >commercial product and it made Bill gates sit up and take serious
> > >notice.
> >
> > Didn't you bother to read what I posted, or the references I gave you?
> > It was VisiOn that made "Bill gates [sic] sit up and take serious
> > notice," not the Mac.
>
> Didn't you read what I posted? Gates saw the Lisa system in 1980 and
> went home and started work on Win 1.0.
I did read what you posted. You said that Windows 1.0 is not a GUI, and
looks nothing like the Mac GUI. Yet in the same breath you tell us Windows
1.0 is a "copy" of the Mac!
> > >> Here's a site that throws cold water on that nonsense:
> > >>
> > >> http://members.fortunecity.com/pcmuseum/windows.htm
> > >>
> > >> "Microsoft first began development of the Interface Manager
> > >> (subsequently renamed Microsoft Windows) in September 1981."
> > >
> > >Yes they did. Unfortunately, it was AFTER Apple began work on the Lisa.
> > >Since Gates was shown early Lisa development when he visited Apple in
> > >1980 (something your "history" site leaves out), that's clearly where
he
> > >got the idea. And to call Windows 1.0 a GUI, is really stretching
> > >things. The Xerox PARC's Star system was more of a GUI than Windows
1.0,
> > >and that's not saying very much.
> >
> > How can you both say that Windows 1.0 is not a GUI, and that it's a
> > copy of the Lisa's GUI?
>
> I didn't say it was a copy of the Lisa. I said Gates saw the Lisa and
> went back home and started to work on Win 1.0
Your words imply the thing you deny they say.
> > >Also, the Lisa shipped before Windows 1.0 as your site clearly points
> > >out.
> >
> > It does indeed. It also points out that VisiOn shipped before the
> > Lisa.
>
> Have you ever seen VisiOn? I thought not,
Did you look at the screen shots from the links I gave you?
> or you wouldn't have said
> that. Remember Edwin, Gates said "Make Windows like the Mac. I want it
> like the Mac." End of story.
That propaganda is not "end of story."
> > > I wonder where the author of that site got the screen shots of
> > >Win1.0? Maybe he was the guy who bought the one copy that MS actually
> > >sold. ;-)
> >
> > Could be. :-)
> >
> > >> Whoa! That's a long time before the Mac came out.
> > >
> > >But Windows 1.0 didn't ship until 1983, AFTER the Lisa shipped and
about
> > >the same time as the Mac was debuted.
> >
> > The point was they were working on it before the Lisa came out.
>
> But they weren't working on it before Apple was working on the Lisa. And
> I was wrong, Win 1.0 was ANNOUNCED in 1983, i
You're still wrong. Windows 1.0 was started in 1981. Read the links I
t didn't ship until 1985 -
> 1.5 years AFTER the Mac first shipped.
GUI principles were introduced in the 1960s, and many were working them
besides Apple, or MS, or even Xerox.
> > >> "Although the first prototypes used Multiplan and Word-like menus at
> > >> the bottom of the screen, the interface was changed in 1982 to use
> > >> pull-down menus and dialogs, as used on the Xerox Star. "
> > >
> > >Wishful thinking. I worked at PARC in the early '80's (as I have
> > >nmebtioned before) and got to use Star. Win1.0 might have had pull-down
> > >menus and dialogs, but they weren't like Star.
> >
> > The point was the ideas involved were not Apple's.
>
> The point is wrong. The development of Lisa predates the begining of the
> work on Win 1.0 by at least a year.
The point is right. Wondows 1.0 development began in 1981. Besides that,
the principles date back to work published in the 1960's and their were
other people working at this besides Apple and MS, and even besides Xerox.
> > >> "As used on the Xerox Star?" I guess Maccies must think only Apple
> > >> has the 'right' to imitate Xerox.
> > >
> > >A little knowledge seems to truly be a dangerous thing, Edwin. Its more
> > >like Gates was copying the Apple Lisa who imitated (to a certain extent
)
> > >Star.
> >
> > No, it's more like they were copying the Xerox Star.
>
> To my knowledge, nobody at MS ever saw the Xerox system.
No offence, but so what?
> And I'm
> reasonably sure Gates never saw it.
Are you claiming psychic powers?
> But Gates DID see Lisa development.
But Windows 1.0 development started in 1981, and it was VisiOn that inspired
Bill Gates. VisiOn ran on the PC. Mac OS did not.
> > >> "Microsoft finally announced Windows in November 1983, with pressure
> > >> from just-released VisiOn and impending TopView."
> > >
> > >> Oh no! The most cherished Mac advocate myth of all has been smashed
> > >> to smithereens! The first GUI for personal computers wasn't Mac OS
at
> > >> all. It was VisiOn for the PC!
> > >
> > >No, it wasn't it was the Apple Lisa.
> >
> > It didn't have to be "the Apple Lisa" to be a GUI.
> >
> > >> "The first GUI for the PC!"
> > >>
> > >> "VisiOn: a graphical environment promoted by VisiCorp, the publishers
> > >> of the VisiCalc spreadsheet. "
> > >>
> > >> "VisiCorp shows the VisiOn graphical user interface at the Fall 1982
> > >> Comdex."
> > >>
> > >> A year after Microsoft started their Windows project.
> > >>
> > >> "Bill Gates sits through three back-to-back demonstrations.
> > >> He flies in other Microsoft officials to watch, then hightails it
back
> > >> to Washington to work on plans for his own graphical overlay for
DOS."
> > >>
> > >> VisiOn was shown in the Fall of 1982, and TopView was impending from
> > >> IBM in 1983. That means lots of people were hard at work on GUI
> > >> systems for years before Apple introduced the Mac in 1984.
> > >>
> > >> VisiOn makes far more sense as the inspiration for Windows, because
it
> > >> too was a DOS shell and it to ran on PC hardware. Facts ignored by
> > >> Maccies because those give none of the credit to Apple Computer, Inc.
> > >>
> > >> Notice also that Bill Gates got nothing from VisiOn that the general
> > >> public did not, but that won't stop Maccies of accusing him of theft.
> > >>
> > >> Why do Maccies claim that Windows is copied from the Mac? Because
> > >> they're ignorant of all the other GUI systems that were under
> > >> development for the PC, and because Windows was released a year after
> > >> the Mac was:
> > >
> > >Because they did.
> >
> > Ah, the old "because I say so" retort. Curses! Foiled again! :-P
> >
> > >Look closely at the screen shots of Win1.o. Do you see
> > >any icons representing either executables or files, any program groups?
> >
> > You mean "do I see anything that indicates it was copied from the
> > Lisa?" Why no, George, I don't.
> >
> > >No, what you see is a window (a crude on at that) with a list of items
> > >in it Do you know how to execute files in Win 1.0? You highlight the
> > >text for the executable, pull down the file menu and pick 'run.' Not
> > >exactly a GUI
> >
> > I see you've conveniently forgotten VisiOn. Allow me to jog your
> > memory. It came out in 1983, it was the first personal computer GUI,
> > it came out before the Mac, and it ran on the PC.
>
> Again. Have you ever seen VisiOn? I thought not.
Did I look at the screen shots from the links you're ignoring? Why, yes I
did.
Did you forget all those other GUI systems I referred you to? Were they all
"copies' of Mac OS? I ask for information only.
Edwin
Edwin
> In article <aojvpl$n52kn$1...@ID-56786.news.dfncis.de>,
> "Edwin" <ze...@aiur.org> wrote:
>
> > > > > And we all know that the similarities of GUI's are judged on the
> > > > > underlying OS structure. :-D
> > > >
> > > > Did you ever hear the phrase "form follows function?"
> > >
> > > Did you ever hear the phrase "insanity follows Edwin"? :)
> >
> > Only while you're following me.
>
> I'm flattered that I am the subject of your paranoia,
Sandman says into his mirror.
> and relieved that Iive in Sweden.
The people of all places that are not Sweden are also relieved that you live
there!
> > > > > > It becomes even sillier when one takes into account that the two
> > > > > > operating systems were written for different hardware, and so it
> > > > > > would have been impossible to make a direct copy.
> > > > >
> > > > > It is a well known fact that Microsoft actually copied the -CODE-
> > > > > from Apple to make Windows. They used industrial espionage to gain
> > > > > access to the code which they then recompiled for Intel and called
> > > > > "Windows".
> > > >
> > > > Tim Smith ought to thank you. You've repeated what he says he
> > > > never saw anyone claim.
> > > >
> > > > Your retelling of that nonsense goes a step beyond, with its
> > > > "industrial espionange" fantasy. Good job, Sandman.
> > >
> > > Yeah, I have it from a reliable source that Bill Gates actually
> > > dressed up as a woman and went on a date with Steve Jobs, who had the
> > > code for MacOS in his wallet. Bill snatched the wallet and ran away in
> > > high heels in the moonlit night.
> >
> > Since when did you become a "reliable source?"
>
> No, really, it's true!
You misspelled "never."
> > > > > Edwin, you are WAY to easy to smack around these days.
> > > >
> > > > Please confine your Sado-Masochistic fantasies to your gay lovers.
> > > > Thank you.
> > >
> > > *smack* *smack* *smack* It's so easy that it's not even fun. :)
> >
> > Sandman is spanking his monkey again. Ewww!
>
> Hey, stop fantasizing about being my "monkey". That's just -weird- man!
Since I never started (no matter how much you begged), I have nothing to
stop.
Now please take these desires of yours to an appropriate alt.sex group.
Edwin
Edwin
"Jim Lee Jr." <peejs...@insightbb.com> wrote in message
news:3DAE33D5...@insightbb.com...
Luckily Sweden is too far for me to see Sandman.
He'll probably send you some pictures if you give him your email address.
Edwin
Edwin
Early eighties? Haven't you got a range of years?
> I used both
> the Alto and the Star system. I bought an Amiga for another company for
> which I worked to do video productions,
So you ought to know that Apple didn't originate GUI concepts.
>So I have used Workspace as well.
Workbench.
> So, yes, I have 'played with' many of these other systems, and seen the
> rest. I also worked at a company where everyone used a Lisa.
So what I say above goes in spades.
> Now, on to your other allegations. Did I say that no one 'clicked'
> before the Mac? No, I did not. I said that Apple used three conventions
> in tandem: Click to select, Double-click to launch, Clock-drag to move.
> Every other GUI since the Lisa adopted those conventions. They clearly
> came from Apple.
You're actually claiming that everyone with these conventions copied them
from Apple?
>The Xerox System (called the Alto, later the Star)
> used symbols lined up in a row on the right side of a page-shapped
> screen to represent various document types. You clicked on them to
> select them, AFTER you opened the applications with a command selected
> from a tab menu.
So they did have click to select. One of your three conventions gets
subtracted from the Apple tally.
>Then you selected "open" from the pull-down menu in the
> app and the selected document would open. There was no click-and-drag,
> and no double click. The mouse was merely used to select things and
> access menus. In applications the mouse allowed for navigation similar
> to the way they still work today.
Doubling clicking and click-drag aren't that far removed from that, and all
other GUIs have it.
> > Are you accusing everyone who had a GUI of copying Apple?
>
> Its not an accusation, its more or less a fact.
You really need to learn how to distinguish your opinions from facts.
>I wouldn't go so far as
> call it "copying" in any nefarious sense, its more a case of following
> Apple's leader, because everyone recognized that Apple's implementation
> of the GUI was a work of genius and probabaly the most effective way to
> design a GUI. It still is.
Spoken as a True Apple Worshipper! We all lived in Darkness, waiting for
Apple to show us the Light. LOL! It makes it all the funnier when you
say this stuff like you really believe it!
> > AmigaDOS sure as
> > hell had click to select, double click to launch, and click-drag to
move.
>
> Yep. They got it from the Lisa.
Now Jay Miner ripped off Apple too? Did Steve Jobs show the Lisa to him as
well? I ask for information only.
Edwin
Edwin
What is to be my reward for digging it up for you? Will you admit to being
a lying ass? Will you bother to look at the argument I'm having now with
George, where he's saying the very things you say none have said?
Edwin