Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site ut-ngp.UTEXAS
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!ut-sally!ut-ngp!awd
From: awd@ut-ngp.UTEXAS (Andrew W. Donoho)
Newsgroups: net.micro.pc,net.micro.atari,net.micro.mac,net.micro.amiga
Subject: Re: DRI agrees to change GEM
Message-ID: <2523@ut-ngp.UTEXAS>
Date: Wed, 23-Oct-85 17:49:15 EDT
Article-I.D.: ut-ngp.2523
Posted: Wed Oct 23 17:49:15 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 25-Oct-85 07:31:57 EDT
References: <3208@nsc.UUCP> <1196@vax1.fluke.UUCP>
Organization: UTexas Computation Center, Austin, Texas
Lines: 15
Xref: linus net.micro.pc:5423 net.micro.atari:1406 net.micro.mac:3103 net.micro.amiga:4337


Many of the folks who are criticizing Apple for givin DRI trouble may
not be aware of what some Apple employees have told me is one reason for
this action.  GEM just isn't a good system.  The fact that it resembles
the Macintosh/Lisa cosmetically could easily turn a lot of people off
to that whole style of working just because of the inadequacy of
the DRI design/implementation.  I don't think that this has any
bearing on the legal issues, but from the standpoint of Apple's
motivation, I find it easy to believe that they would not want what I
(and apparently, they) consider a second-rate "desktop-style" system
to be the standard on many machines.  No one is going to switch to a
Macintosh if they are led to believe that GEM is typical of a state of
the art desktop system.

Darin Adler