Xref: utzoo comp.sys.mac.system:3568 comp.sys.mac.misc:9632 Path: utzoo!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!math.fu-berlin.de!opal!unido!gmdzi!strobl From: strobl@gmdzi.gmd.de (Wolfgang Strobl) Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.system,comp.sys.mac.misc Subject: Re: Apple Computer wins ruling against 'Windows' Message-ID: <4323@gmdzi.gmd.de> Date: 16 Mar 91 11:16:02 GMT References: <46873@nigel.ee.udel.edu> <1991Mar15.101202.1@csc.anu.edu.au> <27E02D24.699@orion.oac.uci.edu> <9964@hub.ucsb.edu> Followup-To: comp.sys.mac.system Organization: GMD, St. Augustin, F.R. Germany Lines: 63 doner@henri.ucsb.edu (John Doner) writes: >As for Windows, the original version, the one current when the Apple >lawsuit was filed, was no more than a slavish copy. As far as I know, the Apple lawsuit wasn't filed against the original version. Anyway, I would like to hear some arguments why you think that Windows (either version) is a "slavish copy", in your opinion. Both systems use rectangular windows of various sorts, but the specifiy look and feel of the user interface is quite different - where the menues are located, when and how a window is resized, how scroll bars work. The handling of the keyboard is very different (and better in Windows in my opinion, by the way). The standardization on the "application" as the main building block in Windows (which makes the "desk accessory" paradigm obsolet), is another example where both systems differ quite radically. A more detailed analysis would disclose more differences between the two architectures and the look&feel. Before you argue that these are minor differences induced by the different hardware platform, take a look at the original version of GEM, which runs on the same platform. *That* was a "slavish copy". You can compare it feature for feature: desktop with folders, exploding folders, menu bar at the top, system folder, position and function of the various controls surrounding an application window, desk accessories - most elements are nearly identical on both systems, GEM and Mac. Perhaps you confused GEM and Windows? > It contained no >clue that the designers understood GUIs, or any of the trade-offs that >go into producing a coherent user-friendly interface. All they wanted >to do was produce something that *looked* like a Mac. Nobody doubts that Apple has specialized in friendly user interface design. But don't jump to the conclusion that everybody else is plain stupid. From reading most of the Windows documentation and literature, I got the impression that the authors understood GUIs quite well. Nowhere is any direct or indirect indication that the main purpose of the system is to create something which looks like a Mac. Your statement and similar ones indicate that you do not understand the trade-offs that are necessary to have a GUI built on top of components from different sources, with no central control. > So salesmen >could tell naive customers asking about the merits of buying a Mac >with its GUI, "Sure, the Mac interface is good, but you can get the >same thing cheaper with this PC clone; see, it looks just the same." Sure. What whould you say in place of that salesman? And do you believe everything salesmen say? >Since then, the Windows designers have improved, and put in some >creativity of their own. But I have a hard time forgiving them for >the original rip-off. Apple borrowed from the Xerox work, but they >put lots of themselves into it. Microsoft just copied. This is such a blatant example of a biased statement, that it could become a classic. What about putting the last two sentences into your signature? ;-) Wolfgang Strobl #include