Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!att!cbnewsm!cbnewsk!jfv
From: jfv@cbnewsk.att.com (j.f.van valkenburg)
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.apps
Subject: Re: Why even use Windows x.xx?
Summary: cart before the horse - maybe?
Message-ID: <1991Apr24.031716.21154@cbnewsk.att.com>
Date: 24 Apr 91 03:17:16 GMT
References: <10960@uwm.edu> <1077@hrshcx.csd.harris.com> <6640@gssc.UUCP> <453@newmedia.UUCP>
Distribution: na
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Lines: 36

In article <453@newmedia.UUCP>, jim@newmedia.UUCP (Jim Beveridge) writes:
> In article <6640@gssc.UUCP>, timr@gssc.UUCP (Tim Roberts) writes:
> > In article <1991Apr12.142258.15226@cbnewsj.att.com> jwi@cbnewsj.att.com (Jim Winer @ AT&T, Middletown, NJ) writes:
> OH NO NOT ANOTHER GUI FLAME WAR PLEASE   N O O o o . .


Not wanting to start any Flame war, big or small, I just want to add my $0.02
worth.

I am an old time unix/C programmer, I've seen many "window" type operating
systems - GEM (good graphics, color on a CGA tube - no support from public),
windows 1.+ (will not support color on CGA,won't support some mouses),
integrated packages ( no comment),
and my favorite, the AT&T UNIXPC ( real multitasking, multiuser , no
color, limited support, real windows in the early 80's).

Some of these GUI's are good, some are not. All do work - they all have
some weakness's.

I just have one question.

Should the application be re-written for the GUI - or should the GUI be
flexible enough to fit the application?

Just a thought from a different point of view.


------------------------
James F. Van Valkenburg         a.k.a.  "van"
AT&T 				Attmail: !jfv               jfv@cbnewsk.att.com
Atlanta, GA.			Voice  404-810-7920
===============================================================================

   ---- Standard Disclaimers included -- Just another grunt at AT&T ----

===============================================================================