Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!pdn!alan
From: alan@pdn.UUCP (Alan Lovejoy)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac
Subject: Re: Re:IBM did it first
Message-ID: <3096@pdn.UUCP>
Date: 9 May 88 19:09:48 GMT
References:  <5003@cup.portal.com> <23849@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> <3080@pdn.UUCP> <2295@polyslo.UUCP>
Reply-To: alan@pdn.UUCP (0000-Alan Lovejoy)
Organization: Paradyne Corporation, Largo, Florida
Lines: 138

In article <2295@polyslo.UUCP> dorourke@polyslo.UUCP (David O'Rourke) writes:
>In article <3080@pdn.UUCP> alan@pdn.UUCP (0000-Alan Lovejoy) writes:
>   Wouldn't it be more correct to say Apple's [windowing system] is related 
>to Xerox, and 
>therefore anything "related to Apple" is then also related to Xerox?

Yes, of course.  But why bother?  The Apple interface is sufficiently
different from the Xerox one that Apple can lay claim to  their own
"look and feel" independently of Xerox's.

>>[I make mention of "pie-chart" menus]
>   This sounds neat could you provide me with some information on where I
>might see a demonstration of this!

Contatct Don Hopkins, Heterogenous Systems Laboratory, University of
Maryland, College Park, MD 20742  TN (301) 454 1516.  

Mr Hopkins gave a "work-in-progress talk" on pie menus at last summer's
Usenix conference in Phoenix.

>>3.  Apple's windowing system is by no means the ultimate example of
>>beauty, correctness, ease-of-use, user-friendliness or parsimony of
>>operating effort.  Pop-up menus are superior to pull-down menus, and
>>pie-chart menus may be superior to rectangular-list menus.
>>Window-specific menus are better than screen-global menus.  And
>>three-button mice are superior to one-button mice.

>   No, but Apple's was the first to be affordiable, and available to the
>general public.  
>...[but in a later paragraph you state]
>   Apple may not be the first, or the best {I'll have this argument with you
>via e-mail if you wish}... 

Who's first is not at issue.  Who's best is only important if it
means that Apple's lawsuit encourages or impedes programmers' creativity 
in some way...

>...but they are the only company I know of that tries
>to deliver state of the art systems to the general public, for use by the
>general public. Sun workstations are wonderful, but who's going to teach my
>father to configure one, and who's going to loan him the money to buy it?

This is completely non-sequitur.  The subject is the effect of the Apple
lawsuit on creativity.  Who was first with what and/or how much it costs
and/or how easy it is to learn and/or how much more productive various
classes of users can be if they use it are irrelevant to this
discussion, unless there is some relation to the creativity issue.

>Also I doubt anyone will respond very well to your
>blanket statments about this being better than that.  Have you ever had
>to teach someone to use a three button mouse, Apple's user interface model
>is far superior as far as teachine machine operation.  Window specific menus
>aren't necessarily better, witness the popularity of the Amiga OS.
>   I don't know how the rest of netland feels about your statment, but I've
>found that there are few things in the world that are always "superior" to
>other options.  Things are only "superior" when they are given a context to
>be "superior" in.

My posting was a response to your blanket assumption that the Mac
interface was The Last Word in windowing systems and that therefore
the Apple lawsuit (if successful) necessarily impedes programmer
productivity.  Bah, humbug!

Let's compromise on this one:  what's better is a matter of individual
taste, and the best system probably hasn't been invented yet.  Ok?

>>4. If IBM could have successfully sued the clone-makers for violating
>>their "look-and-feel" rights, then a lot of the industry's resources[
>>would not have been wasted on IBM-PC technology.  The state of the art
>>today would be far in advance of where it is now.  Sigh.

>   Are you equating the IBM PC with "state of the art".   

Huh? NO!  What ever gave you that idea?  Let me reiterate:

If less resources had been spent cloning and improving the inherently
backward IBM PC, more could have been spent pushing the state-of-the-art
forward.  The Apple Mac is a prime example of what just one company was
able to do by ignoring the IBM PC.  Sun is another good example.  Imagine what 
Compaq could do if they focused their talents at producing the best possible 
system, instead of the best possible clone!

Why am I arguing over this point this with a Mac user?  It's like when
the Syrians invaded Lebanon with Soviet tanks to save the Christian
militia from the Moslems...

>   And as far as wasting resources.  I feel that the general public has a right
>to buy what ever it feels like.  

And does this right include buying what is not for sale (e.g., the
hypothetical Compaq system mentioned above)?  What about the right to buy 
the best possible product (which may not be for sale!)?

>And if the clone manufactures hadn't come
>along IBM would be milking the public for their PC's like you wouldn't believe.
>The clones are what what [made?] IBM the standard, before they came along no 
>one 
>could afford the IBM "personal" computer.  I'd rather see someone buy old
>technology that get's the job done at a resonable price, than not have anything
>at all because they can't afford it.

Just because the clones are clones does not guarantee that they will be
cheap.  Nor does the fact that a computer is not a clone guarantee that it
will be expensive.  The Compaq and the Atari ST's are exhibits #1 and
#2.

Your unstated premise appears to be that standard systems (which are
compatible with each other because of the standards) are less expensive
than non-standard ones.  Perhaps, but I don't concede the point. 

There are other ways to achieve compatibility than having everyone use
the same CPU's, the same BIOS and the same operating system.  If the law
better protected intellectual property rights, there would be more 
incentive to use these alternative compatibility techniques (and develop
others).  The result would be greater freedom for hardware and software
engineers to design the best possible systems without being
straight-jacketed into low-level copy-cat compatibility.  That freedom
would be used to give buyers more diversity and freedom of choice when
selecting the best product for their needs.  It is an evolutionary
process that uses natural selection to promote winners and weed out
losers.  The speed of this evolution is very dependent on the mutation
rate.  The IBM PC has put a big damper on that rate.

>   State of the art is always far in advance of where it is now.  The problem
>is that companies rarely make it avaliable to the general public at price,
>and in a package that they can use.

I think you meant to say that state-of-the-art is always far in advance
of products currently for sale.  What you actually said makes no sense.

In any case, what does it have to do with computer system design
creativity?

-- 
Alan Lovejoy; alan@pdn; 813-530-8241; Paradyne Corporation: Largo, Florida.
Disclaimer: Do not confuse my views with the official views of Paradyne
            Corporation (regardless of how confusing those views may be).
Motto: Never put off to run-time what you can do at compile-time!