Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!crdgw1!barnett From: barnett@grymoire.crd.ge.com (Bruce Barnett) Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.system Subject: Re: The Mouse -- What is its History? Message-ID: Date: 17 Oct 90 12:58:21 GMT References: <21056@dime.cs.umass.edu> <1123@helens.Stanford.EDU> <9028@jarthur.Claremont.EDU> <1990Oct11.174840.21598@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> , <4b6rz2i00awUA5o2gz@andrew.cmu.edu> Sender: news@crdgw1.crd.ge.com Reply-To: barnett@crdgw1.ge.com Organization: GE Corp. R & D, Schenectady, NY Lines: 18 In-reply-to: vd09+@andrew.cmu.edu's message of 16 Oct 90 21:46:42 GMT In article <4b6rz2i00awUA5o2gz@andrew.cmu.edu> vd09+@andrew.cmu.edu (Vincent M. Del Vecchio) writes: > *BUT* the supplied toolkits which are used in the "sample clients" give > it a user-interface, even if one that is nominally not standardized by > the suppliers. I know that. Of COURSE some of the clients have a user interface. Each toolkit can provide anywhere from 0 to 100% of the Look and Feel of an application. Each toolkit can be radically difference in UI from other toolkits. If you want to knock a particular toolkit, fine. I'll join in. But X windows itself cannot be criticized for not having a User Interface. It's not suppose to. -- Bruce G. Barnett barnett@crd.ge.com uunet!crdgw1!barnett