Path: utzoo!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!math.fu-berlin.de!uniol!unido!gmdzi!strobl From: strobl@gmdzi.gmd.de (Wolfgang Strobl) Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.system Subject: Re: Apple Computer wins ruling against 'Windows' Message-ID: <4321@gmdzi.gmd.de> Date: 15 Mar 91 18:25:56 GMT References: <46873@nigel.ee.udel.edu> <1991Mar15.101202.1@csc.anu.edu.au> <1468@vtserf.cc.vt.edu> Organization: GMD, St. Augustin, F.R. Germany Lines: 82 cohill@vtserf.cc.vt.edu (Andrew M. Cohill) writes: >I dunno. We just got a couple copies of Windows here, because there are >many more DOS users on campus than Mac users, and Windows is a joke. >The 3.0 seems to have been deliberately designed not to look and work >like the Mac interface, and everything seems awkward and clumsy. The >windowing model is just plain stupid and confusing--some windows will >only open inside of other windows, while other kinds of windows, with >exactly the same appearance, can be moved anywhere on the screen. Lots >of other dumb junk abounds.... Very bright. Just because some windows are overlapped and other's aren't, the windowing model is "just plain stupid and confusing"? >I am sure Windows seems great to people who have had trouble with the >simplisticly complicated DOS interface, but compared to any other >windowing system (Mac, Motif, NeXT....) it is still just a toy. Funny. The Motif window manager is more or less a MS-Windows clone. The functional components of an application window are the same, on both systems: the place, layout and functionality of the control menu on the left of the title bar, the minimize and maximize buttons to the right of the title bar, the place, layout and functionality of the menu bar below, the keyboard interface of everything (down to the Alt-F4 for terminating an application), ... Motif and MS-Windows are very similar and quite different from the Macintosh GUI. Your above comparison is flawed. >So why is it "successful"? I think it has to do more with the >applications that are just now becoming available, that do offer some of >the functionality of Mac apps, but we had all that stuff six years ago. What about multitasking. Did you have that, six years ago? >Windows is a kluge. The Mac is not. One hell of a difference, in my >opinion, and I still wonder why Apple should even care. As long as they >keep pushing the Mac, Microsoft will never catch up. Windows suffers from its relation to the DOS file system, no doubt. And the Macintosh has the advantage that everything, hardware and system software is created by one company. >In one of the trade rags (back page of InfoWorld, I think), the point >was made that Windows apps will never achieve the same level of >functionality that Mac apps have because a Windows developer cannot >count on a consistent set of hardware features--any Mac developer knows >that every Mac user has high-res graphics, built-in networking, great >sound output( and now sound input), and the same kind of processor >(functionally, the 68000 differs little from the '030, unlike the '286 >and the '386). What about this tiny, 512 pixel wide screen? Does that count as high-res graphics? In my opinion, Macintosh developers have to take smaller screens into account, compared with Windows developers. Anyway, a Windows developer may have to live with more variance of hardware features, but he or she enjoys a software interface which successfully hides most of the differences. The Intel series of processors are more suitable for a Windows or Mac like OS than the Motorola processors, because they allow it to move code segments on the fly, for example. They have parts of the memory management built right into the hardware. > Pity the poor DOS developer who actually has to worry if >his or her Window app will run properly on a dinky '286 machine with >an old mono display, no network, and no sound; *and* also work properly >on a high end 386 with XGA color running Novell and a bunch of wierd >high end hardware kluges to speed the software up. As a Windows developer I assure you that this is not much of a problem. (And don't call us "DOS developers", PLEASE). >Windows and Mac--it's no contest, Apple...... Of course it's a contest, but an unusual one: either both parties win, or both loose. You seem to prefer the latter case. Wolfgang Strobl #include