🚀 go-pugleaf

From article <1710@ssc-vax.UUCP>, by benoni@ssc-vax.UUCP (Charles L Ditzel):
> In article <283@rhesus.primate.wisc.edu>, bin@rhesus.primate.wisc.edu (Brain in Neutral) writes:
>> phil@apple.UUCP (Phil Ronzone, A/UX Technical Manager) wrote:
>> > Remember - it is a Mac. Under A/UX or the Mac OS, you have the Toolbox
>> > and the Mac look and feel. Ain't nobody else got that ...
>   
> The toolbox is hardly something to be touting ... the Mac Toolbox lacks the
> sophistication of other systems that incorporate network window management
> and extensible window servers.  Three years ago this might have been an
> appropriate point.

Nothng to be touting,  eh?  The Mac Toolbox and the Mac user interface has
set the standard for other PC's to follow for three years now.  Sure,  it's
not network extensible,  but it wasn't designed to be either.  It *is* THE
most consistant user interface on any computer today,  and always will be.
On no other computer can you find the same commands in the same place on
hundreds of different applications.  

It never ceases to amaze me that the majority of people who malign the Mac
are the same people who have never used one.

> As for the look and feel ... the Mac certainly has made it's contribution
> but since it is not licensable and others can't use it... it is being 
> by-passed by the remainder of the industry...e.g. SunTools, Presentation 
> Manager, Apollo's DM, etc.  Rather it is Apple that is moving more toward

How can you say that the look and feel are being bypassed when nearly every
windowing system has either 'borrowed from'  or flat out copied the Mac user
interface.  There's MS Windows,  GEM,  and countless others who are riding
the coat tails of Apple foresight.  

> industry standards with NeWS and X sitting on their system.  Writing
> an A/UX application using the Mac Toolbox specifically precludes the 
> application migrating elsewhere (which in some cases makes sense, but in
> most does not if you are interested in portability).

Says who?  I'm an Apple developer writing applications for the Mac under
A/UX.  My applications are being written so that they are not only portable
to the MacOS,  (that's Finder to you),  but to vanilla UNIX. too  Stuff that in
your 3 button mouse.

And why shouldn't Apple have NeWS and X on their system?  Why should that
bother you?  Apple has recognized the need to run standard windowng systems
in addition to the Finder.  I feel that will increase the number of
applications that will be ported to the Mac II.  

> it's been done...why else did Apple sue DRI for GEM.  

Apple sued DRI for blatantly ripping off the Mac user interface,  something
it has the right to do.  As I have said before,  others have borrowed
heavily from the Mac OS.  And as I recall,  didn't Apple grant Microsoft a
license to the Apple look and feel for Windows?


"All in all,  I'd rather use a Macintosh"
						- W.C. Fields (paraphrased)


-- 
        Lawrence A. Dziegielewski       |       E.I. Dupont Co.
        uunet!eplrx7!lad                |       Engineering Physics Lab
        Cash-We-Serve 76127,104         |       Wilmington, Delaware 19898
        MABELL:  (302) 695-1311         |       Mail Stop: E357-318