Xref: utzoo comp.sys.amiga:45959 comp.sys.ibm.pc:40172 comp.sys.mac:44521
Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!mailrus!purdue!bu-cs!encore!pinocchio.encore.com
From: jdarcy@pinocchio.encore.com (Jeff d'Arcy)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga,comp.sys.ibm.pc,comp.sys.mac
Subject: Re: Xerox sues Apple!!!
Message-ID: <10673@encore.Encore.COM>
Date: 18 Dec 89 12:48:38 GMT
References: <33269@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU>
Sender: news@Encore.COM
Followup-To: comp.sys.amiga
Lines: 51

kipnis@janus.Berkeley.EDU (Gary Kipnis):
> Please give a single example of what you can do faster on a mac than on a pc.

The most obvious example is "train someone else to use it".  My next example
would be writing a memo/resume/spec. that didn't look like I did it on a
cheap typewriter (multiple fonts/sizes, proportional spacing etc).  I know
this is dependent on a LaserWriter and that you can also do it on a PC, but
you asked what an average person could do *faster* on a Mac.

> There 
> probably ISN'T a single command that you can perform faster with a mac than
> pc.

You seem to've missed the point here; the whole idea of the Mac is to get
away from *commands*.  If you want to talk about which *activities* can be
performed faster on Macs, see the above.

Since I'm posting anyway, I'd like to add my two cents' worth about Xerox's
suit and Apple's corporate arrogance.  It seems to me that the suit is an
attempt to prevent Apple from making money off of Xerox technology, not to
prevent Apple from *using* it or to make money for Xerox.  In this I think
it's similar to Bucky Fuller's idea of patenting something and releasing
the patent into the public domain, preventing anyone from making money off
of his ideas.

I programmed Macs for 3-4 years, and I like the little buggers, but I've
always tried to recognize other machines' strengths.  Since this has led
to my current involvement with UNIX I think I have some perspective on the
issue.  Xerox did some *very* valuable and *expensive* work to determine
how user interfaces should work.  Apple took the results of this work and
made it available to the public.  Both companies deserve lots of credit.
Apple's insistence on "owning" the interface is absurd because not only
were they not its inventors, but it's not so much a new technology as it
is a new area of study.  Anyone else could duplicate Xerox's experiments
with mice (n buttons), light pens, tablets, icons, windows, menus, etc.
and it would surprise nobody if they got the same results.  With those
results in hand, they would logically come up with an interface basically
similar to Apple/Xerox.  How, then, can either company own an interface
that's inevitable given the way human perceptions work?

Much as I like the Mac, its interface is not perfect.  This is partly
because of developers who fail to appreciate the effort that went into
creating "the rules", but part is also inherent.  Ever try to do pipes
on a Mac?  How about real multitasking (MultiFinder doesn't help much
when you're trying to write network daemons and such)?  If I could have
an interface as intuitive as the Mac's on a machine with a real OS I'd
be very happy.  Fortunately my wait is getting shorter, mainly because
Apple is failing to maintain their chokehold on interface technology.

Jeff d'Arcy     OS/Network Software Engineer     jdarcy@encore.com
  If Encore endorsed my opinions, they couldn't afford to pay me