Xref: utzoo comp.sys.mac:13511 comp.windows.misc:173 Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!lll-winken!lll-tis!ames!ll-xn!mit-eddie!uw-beaver!ssc-vax!benoni From: benoni@ssc-vax.UUCP (Charles L Ditzel) Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac,comp.windows.misc Subject: Re: A/UX window systems, Mac toolbox, etc Message-ID: <1723@ssc-vax.UUCP> Date: 3 Mar 88 03:40:41 GMT References: <1710@ssc-vax.UUCP> <579@eplrx7.UUCP> Organization: Boeing Aerospace Corp., Seattle WA Lines: 70 In article <579@eplrx7.UUCP>, lad@eplrx7.UUCP (Lawrence A. Dziegielewski) writes: > From article <1710@ssc-vax.UUCP>, by benoni@ssc-vax.UUCP (Charles L Ditzel): > Nothng to be touting, eh? The Mac Toolbox and the Mac user interface has > set the standard for other PC's to follow for three years now. Sure, it's > not network extensible, but it wasn't designed to be either. It *is* THE > most consistant user interface on any computer today, and always will be. > On no other computer can you find the same commands in the same place on > hundreds of different applications. If you like the monochromatic look that's fine...and I do generally... but it is the heighth of hubris to believe that some applications would not operate better without this interface...so before getting excited ... I would hope you would see that in *fact* with each new addition of a feature the Mac look and feel is *changing*. Hypercard's "home" for example is hardly in keeping with the "look and feel" you talk about...what will multi-tasking do to it? The Mac is evolving ... and hopefully to something better. > It never ceases to amaze me that the majority of people who malign the Mac > are the same people who have never used one. Interesting, I have spent *alot* of time on the Mac...so I hope you are talking about someone else. ... incidentally I was not maligning the Mac at all...I was stating the user interface practices have moved on since the Mac's introduction . Instead of religious flaming why not look at what Apollo, Sun, Xerox and Symbolics are doing. I am familiar with these machines and they have alot to offer. > > As for the look and feel ... the Mac certainly has made it's contribution > > but since it is not licensable and others can't use it... it is being > > by-passed by the remainder of the industry...e.g. SunTools, Presentation > > Manager, Apollo's DM, etc. Rather it is Apple that is moving more toward > How can you say that the look and feel are being bypassed when nearly every > windowing system has either 'borrowed from' or flat out copied the Mac user > interface. There's MS Windows, GEM, and countless others who are riding > the coat tails of Apple foresight. Funny...I didn't know Apple invented "the menu"(nor "the icon")..and they did not...GEM certainly did copy Apple (in my opinion)...as for SunTools and DM not at all. Unless you also think that Apple invented the "icon"...? :) SunTool has context-sensitive menus that can be customized by the user (or they can accept the default). Sun's Windows and user interface is *completely* customizable (like the control panel but much more extensive) (one can for example set a visual bell or an a audible bell, tabs, gravity (where the cursor will appear when a new window is generated), pull-right menus can be customized (whole trees can be created if you desire...)...the DM and SunTool environments allow you to for example to cut and paste the command line arguements (as well as among editors) and these operations can become object oriented....for example...in DM you can select the word "file.x" and click the mouse...you then pull up a view or editor with file.x in it. Incidentally...you seem to think that Apple worked from a vacuum...you don't mention Xerox or Xerox licenses. > > industry standards with NeWS and X sitting on their system. Writing > > an A/UX application using the Mac Toolbox specifically precludes the > > application migrating elsewhere (which in some cases makes sense, but in > > most does not if you are interested in portability). > Says who? I'm an Apple developer writing applications for the Mac under > A/UX. My applications are being written so that they are not only portable > to the MacOS, (that's Finder to you), but to vanilla UNIX. too Stuff that (Obviously you are incensed by what you view as heretical ideas) good for you ... i don't think too many Unix systems have Mac Toolbox calls...sorry to break the news ... you make my point quite nicely...you will not be using the Mac Toolbox on other systems. So what "industry standard" will you be using NeWS or X? :) > And why shouldn't Apple have NeWS and X on their system? Why should that > bother you? Apple has recognized the need to run standard windowng systems doesn't bother me a bit. tho' It seems to bother you more. Personally, i think NeWS and X are *good* for the Mac II. My problem is with attitudes that permeate your posting...if for example NeXT or some other company came out with a more elegant user interface...i get the feeling you would ignore it. ----------------- My opinions are my own. Thankfully.