Xref: utzoo misc.legal:4354 comp.sys.ibm.pc:13738 comp.sys.mac:14447 comp.sys.apple:4921
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!yale!cmcl2!esquire!sbb
From: sbb@esquire.UUCP (Stephen B. Baumgarten)
Newsgroups: misc.legal,comp.sys.ibm.pc,comp.sys.mac,comp.sys.apple
Subject: Re: Apple Challenges HP New Wave, MS-Windows, Potentially OS/2 PM
Message-ID: <375@esquire.UUCP>
Date: 25 Mar 88 21:10:24 GMT
References: <5480@well.UUCP> <4092@batcomputer.tn.cornell.edu> <1719@pasteur.Berkeley.Edu> <371@esquire.UUCP> <5526@well.UUCP>
Reply-To: sbb@esquire.UUCP (Stephen B. Baumgarten)
Organization: DP&W, New York, NY
Lines: 24
Keywords: Apple HP Microsoft Windows OS/2 New Wave Frivolous Litigation

In article <5526@well.UUCP> rogue@well.UUCP (L. Brett Glass) writes:
>In article <371@esquire.UUCP> sbb@esquire.UUCP (Stephen B. Baumgarten) writes:
>
>>This makes some sense, especially since the original version of
>>Windows, covered under the 1985 license agreement, had only "tiled"
>>windows (i.e., windows that could not be dragged around, rearranged
>>and overlapped with the mouse). 
>
>This is incorrect. The original version of Windows had the capability
>to do both kinds of windows. The tiled windows were merely the most
>often-used option, since "religion" at Microsoft had it that this was
>the best way to use screen space. IBM insisted that overlapping windows
>be used to conform to its SAA interface, so they became the default
>in Windows 2.0.
>
><rogue>

Thanks, I stand corrected.  But it scares me to think that, at least
in this instance, I agree with IBM about human interfaces...

-- 
   Steve Baumgarten             | "New York... when civilization falls apart,
   Davis Polk & Wardwell        |  remember, we were way ahead of you."
   ...!cmcl2!esquire!sbb        |                           - David Letterman