Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!dino!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!m.cs.uiuc.edu!s.cs.uiuc.edu!meyer
From: meyer@s.cs.uiuc.edu
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: Re: Xerox sues Apple!!!
Message-ID: <213400078@s.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: 21 Dec 89 17:33:35 GMT
References: <4540@ur-cc.UUCP>
Lines: 46
Nf-ID: #R:ur-cc.UUCP:4540:s.cs.uiuc.edu:213400078:000:2002
Nf-From: s.cs.uiuc.edu!meyer    Dec 20 13:13:00 1989


To all those engaged in the flame wars: (MAC vs PC) a little sniping from the
audience...

First, the current incarnations of both types of machines suck.  But then, I
believe that the perfect machine won't be created for a long while yet.  And
both machines have their merits.

And both types copied their interfaces, MAC fro Xerox and the IBM PC's from 
CP/M and Unix.  Litigation such as what we now see is a direct consequence
of over-staffed legal departments!

Regarding which system is better, (GUI or NON-GUI) the GUI is definitely
the best route, for_most_ tasks.  (There are always exceptions...)  However,
the QUI must _NOT_ depend on the pointing device (aka mouse).  A user who 
prefers a command-line interface should not be forced to use a pointing device
and pull-down menus.

And Microsoft Windows, which I use extensively, is not just a knockoff of the
MAC GUI.  Granted, it is modeled after it, but Windows, too, adds a great 
deal of functionality to an existing scheme.  The graphics handling 
similarities may be lacking in Windows, but other aspects of the interface have 
been improved or added.  An minor example is the ability to click on the scroll
bar to simulate a <PgUp> or <PgDn>.  Also, the Key Accelerators (Hot Keys) are
implemented on a wider scale in the Windows interface than in a MAC.

(point PC+Windows)

On the other hand, the MAC has a much more flexible file naming system.  Enough
said.

(point MAC)

Windows, however, is definitely a DOG at performance.  But I've been told that
the MAC _DEDICATES_ CPU cycles to the display, whether needed or not.  
Microsoft's scheme only uses the CPU when needed.

(point Microsoft for Ingenuity,  deduct 1 for execution of the idea.)
(deduct 1 from MAC for waste, ... point Motorola for speed to waste.)

So, in the end it's a tied ballgame.  Enough said.


Don Meyer		| "If indeed there exists Artificial Intelligence,
      dlmeyer@uiuc.edu  |    Then there must also exist
			|       Artificial Stupidity!"- Anon.