🚀 go-pugleaf

skulski@fermi.nsrl.rochester.edu wrote:
: In article <4j0vqu$2m9@neptune.ethz.ch>,
: rvoegeli@inf.ethz.ch (Roland Andre Voegeli) writes:
: > Peter Froehlich (p.froehlich@amc.cube.net) wrote:
: > 
: > :    As  the subject says, this is a weird idea (and I know that, don't point
: > : it  out  to  me)  just  good for producing the "marketing hype" that Oberon
: > : currently lacks.
: > 
: > I think, a big problem of today's software is that many ugly things are
: > introduced for the sake of "marketing hypes". Let's not do the same thing
: > with Oberon.

:  Do not you think that to some extent System-3 + Gadgets tried 
: to follow the "marketing hype" of overlapped windows, as the original
: System interface was considered too awkward?

With Oberon System 3, J.Gutknecht tried a different approach to system-objects
than it was done in Oberon V4. V4 supports the "element paradigm". Unfortunately,
Elements are very strongly bound to texts. System 3 objects seem to me to be the 
more "regular" concept.
I don't know, what was the "real" driving force for the development of Gadgets.
Perhaps it may have been the "marketing hype", maybe it is just an other approach
to user interfaceing (more flexible user interface and so on...).
I'm tending to the second argument.
As you shurely know, user interfaceing is a complex thing without THE solution.

: Did it get any appreciable market share among "end users" who were 
: supposedly the target? 

No, but it gave some ideas to people such as the Oberon Microsystems staff. Just
look at Oberon/F.

: IMHO Oberon needs marketing, not marketing hype. These can be two 
: different things.

I agree with you.

mfg, Roland