🚀 go-pugleaf

In <1991May2.184326.19551@visix.com> amanda@visix.com (Amanda Walker) writes:
>   In article <HF0815w164w@mantis.co.uk> mathew@mantis.co.uk (mathew) writes:
>   Apple also tried to prevent Digital Research from selling its GEM desktop
>   system; they partially succeeded, settling out of court when DR agreed to
>   cripple GEM in order to stop it being as usable as the Macintosh.
>
>Nope.  DR agreed to change GEM so that it was no longer an out-and-out
>copy of the Macintosh interface.

What exactly do you mean by an "out-and-out copy"?

>                                 Lest anyone misundertstand me, I fully
>support Apple's right to protect their user interface.  However, the
>Macintosh is not by any means the only, or even the best, way to do a
>desktop interface.

True. However, for many of the features which Apple claims as its own (such
as wastebasket icons, pull-down menus, and multiple overlapping file windows)
it is extremely difficult to think of a better way to do the job.

>They have *not* even touched companies who have built desktop interfaces
>that *don't* duplicate the Mac's interface, such as:
>
> - Visix with Looking Glass
> - Sun with OpenWindows and the File Manager
> - IXI with X.Desktop
> - GeoWorks with GEOS and Ensemble
> - NeXT with NeXTStep
> - IBM with CUA
> - The Open Software Foundation with Motif

Wait a moment. CUA, Motif and Windows are practically identical. Why are
Apple going after Microsoft and not after IBM and OSF?  Could it, perchance,
be because Apple's resources are limited?

I'd be more impressed with your argument if Apple were to send out a press
release saying that they specifically will not be pursuing any of the above
systems even if they win their case. At the moment, we have to rely on
Apple's good will, and hope that they are only going after out-and-out
copies of the Mac UI.

>However, I find it hard to believe that Sun, IBM, and the OSF are "not
>worth worrying about yet."

OS/2 2.0 might draw some attention from Apple. Apart from that, I really
don't see that any of them are competing with Apple to anything like the sort
of degree Microsoft is with Windows. Apple didn't even have UNIX until quite
recently.

>You seem to be assuming that the Macintosh interface is the only way to
>present a desktop metaphor.  I don't agree whatsoever.  I don't even
>think it's the best way, although it's one of the best currently on the
>market.
[...]
>I hate to break this to you, but Apple does indeed have a patent on a
>pull-down menu bar at the top of the screen.  Look at the Apple mouse
>patent...

So you support the idea that only Apple should be allowed to have a pull-down
menu bar at the top of the screen?  What other sort of menu presentation is
suitable for small computers with limited screen space?  Pop-ups are too
invisible when not actively selected, and drop-down menus are a pain if
you're not dextrous with the mouse.

A pull-down menu is a fundamental design feature, and should not be
restricted to one software manufacturer any more than the idea of the
steering wheel should be restricted to one car manufacturer. ("The other car
makers can use joysticks, can't they?")

>I do not recall any lawsuit preceding the Microsoft agreement (which was,
>after all, made many years ago).  Please provide a reference so that I can
>go look up the case.

Sorry, perhaps it was just the THREAT of a lawsuit. I suppose THAT makes it
alright, doesn't it?  (Deep sarcasm)

>   A desktop where you can't resize the windows, can't have a
>   wastebasket icon, can't have expanding boxes to show windows popping
>   up, and so on, is just not good enough for most people.
>
>Resizable windows are certainly no invention of Apple.  As for the
>others, I beg to differ :).

Right. Well let's be specific then. *I* want any windowing system I use to
have expanding boxes and drag-and-drop file deletion via a wastebasket icon.
Is there some reason why I should be forced to buy only Apple products as a
result of my design preferences?  I can buy something with the exact "cloned"
look and feel of a mountain bike from any one of a hundred manufacturers. I
can buy something with the exact "cloned" look and feel of a Jeep from any
one of a hundred manufacturers. I can buy something with the exact "cloned"
look and feel of a Sony hi-fi system from almost any other hi-fi
manufacturer. Why should computers be different?

>   Apple refuse
>   to let their competitors use those features, so effectively they are
>   stopping people from writing usable desktop systems.
>
>Nope.  Saying you can't just use the Finder as a spec does, however,
>require such people to do some design work of their own.

So saying "You can build cars, but you're not allowed to use a steering
wheel" just necessitates a little extra design work?  You think that having
every manufacturer's car steer a different way -- some with a joystick, some
with a wheel, some with a horizontal bar -- would be a sensible state of
affairs?!


mathew

-- 
mathew - mathew@mantis.co.uk or mcsun!ukc!ibmpcug!mantis!mathew