Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sdd.hp.com!hp-pcd!hpcvlx!ben From: ben@hpcvlx.cv.hp.com (Benjamin Ellsworth) Newsgroups: comp.windows.x Subject: Re: What's what in OPEN LOOK/OpenWindows (long) Message-ID: <100920250@hpcvlx.cv.hp.com> Date: 19 Sep 90 15:50:25 GMT References: <9009171845.AA02659@kimba.Eng.Sun.COM> Organization: Hewlett-Packard Co., Corvallis, OR, USA Lines: 43 > As a matter of morbid curiosity, has OSF ever made the reasoning that > lead to their choice of a combination of elements from DEC, HP and > Microsoft public? I'll be interested to read an official OSF statement myself. In the meantime, here's my personal opinion of why OL didn't make it. Given: - Multi-tasking Commercial/Business workstations are a hot market; perhaps *the* hot workstation market for the next decade. - These workstations should be running un*x. - The current single tasking workstations are either MSDOS or Mac's. - Microsoft appears to be much more open (and less anxious to litigate) than Apple. It seems quite reasonable to conclude: - Microsoft compatible GUI's are going to be much more acceptable to the Commercial/Business folks that some new unknown interface. Once we have come to this conclusion, we notice: - OL is not Microsoft compatible, and to make it so destroys its open-lookness. - HP's CXI was nearly compatible, and DEC's could be force fitted to the HP CXI model. The decision to go with a combined HP/DEC offering rather than an OL offering becomes obvious. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Benjamin Ellsworth | ben@cv.hp.com | INTERNET Hewlett-Packard Company | {backbone}!hplabs!hp-pcd!ben | UUCP 1000 N.E. Circle | (USA) (503) 750-4980 | FAX Corvallis, OR 97330 | (USA) (503) 757-2000 | VOICE ----------------------------------------------------------------------- All relevant disclaimers apply. -----------------------------------------------------------------------