Xref: utzoo comp.sys.mac.misc:9685 comp.sys.mac.system:3591 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.misc,comp.sys.mac.system Subject: Re: Apple Computer wins ruling against 'Windows' Message-ID: <4325@gmdzi.gmd.de> Date: 17 Mar 91 12:14:01 GMT References: Followup-To: comp.sys.mac.misc Organization: GMD, St. Augustin, F.R. Germany Lines: 52 jp48+@andrew.cmu.edu (Jonathan Pace) writes: > Since Mr. Strobl would like to hear an argument why the original version of >windows is a "slavish copy", I'll give him one. > The original version of windows, which Apple did not file suit against, was >part of a licensing agreement with Apple. So, if you want to argue that it was >an imitation of the Mac, it was. If you want to argue it wasn't since they had >legal agreements to produce it, it wasn't. You decide. I don't know the exact contents of the licensing agreement you refer to, so I don't have an opinion about whether Microsoft has or had the legal right to create an imitation of the GUI of the Macintosh. My argument is that it doesn't matter, because they didn't do it. I tried to describe a few areas where I see technical and architectural differences between the two GUIs, to substantiate my statement, and asked for technical, not legal facts which might give reasons for the so far unsubstantiated description of Windows as a "slavish copy" of the Macintosh GUI. So far I got nothing. > Apple filed suit because MS tried to re-engineer the parts that Apple >wouldn't let them use. As I understand it, MS isn't able to produce any >evidence that they used a clean room in their development. Apple contends >that MS examined the codes and tried to massage them enough to _claim_ their >own creative process went into them. Naturally they had to work around the >many DOS systems on the market, but they started from Apple code, not a blank >sheet (Apple's contention, not my statement). I have no way to to check the truth of such facts other than looking at what is visible to an ordinary developer. From that point of view, it sounds quite improbable that MS-Windows is built upon code from Apple. Anyway, given the fact that both systems where developed most of the time in parallel and built upon the earlier work of others, the "clean room" requirement is not applicable. By the way, what about Apple? Did they use a clear room approach building their system? > Personally, using Windows is not as easy as using the Mac. I've never >programmed either, so I won't labor that point. It seems to have been beaten >to death already. Using Windows is not as easy as using the Mac (from a Mac users point of view). Using the Mac is not as easy as using Windows (from a Windows users point of view). Using the Mac is easier than using Windows, for somebody starting anew. This is partially because of technical differences (closed system vs. open system), partially because Windows has to work around the lack of certain surface features - the waste basket comes to mind - which Apple seems to own, partially because Apple invests more into what they call "Human Interface Design" and nothing into support for cheap hardware from various sources. Wolfgang Strobl #include