Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!math.fu-berlin.de!opal!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: <4424@gmdzi.gmd.de> Date: 30 Mar 91 13:37:27 GMT References: <46873@nigel.ee.udel.edu> <1991Mar15.101202.1@csc.anu.edu.au> <438 <1991Mar29.031246.3691@vax5.cit.cornell.edu> Distribution: comp Organization: GMD, St. Augustin, F.R. Germany Lines: 45 umh@vax5.cit.cornell.edu writes: ... >Secondly, as regards whether these are the only ways of creating a GUI- that's >not as clearcut as Mr Strobl feels. There are many ways to implement a GUI that >differ substantially from the Mac- far more so than Windows does. One example >is NeXTStep, which looks nothing like the Mac- no MenuBar moved to the window >etc. A second example is different incantations of Motif. For example one can >set up Motif so that the active window- the one receiving keystrokes- does NOT >automatically come to the top- you can tell it's active by the change of border >color. This would probably be of no use of my dinky 512x384 Mac screen, but is >wonderful on a 1280x1024 workstation screen with 8 active processes when you >don't want the window you're happy to type a few lines in to come to the top. A >second thing you can do in motif is to have the activeness of a window governed >not by clicking in the window, but simply by having the mouse pointer in that >window. Once you get used to that, it seems much faster than having to click a >window to activate it- another different way of doing things. I don't doubt that there are many ways to implement a GUI which differ more from the Mac than Windows does. What I disagree with is the conclusion that one GUI is the copy of the other. Beside the fact that both systems have common roots, much what can be viewed as a similarity comes from the fact that both systems operate on quite similar hardware (similar constraints for storage, cpu power, video bandwith, size and speed of secondary storage, ...). Under these circumstances, they are as different as they can be, in my opinion. Using your own example: of course it seems to be quite usefull not to synchronize keyboard focus and window order, if your workstation with its mega-pel display has to refresh its window over the network, and if multiple shells (i.e. text mode applications) in slightly overlapping windows is something to support. On the other hand, if screen space is rare and refresh is fast, the usefullness of synchronization is obvious. Customizing MS-Windows so that activating a window is done by moving the mouse pointer over that window - instead of clicking into it - is quite simple. There is a little shareware utility (raise, by Robert Nee), which implements this feature. I don't use it, because I'm satisfied with the default behaviour, but tried it, and it works well. I'm sure that there are similar customization possibilites on the Mac. Wolfgang Strobl #include