Re: Big Mac Attack

[rder@pro-palmtree.cts.com (Richard Der)]

dalloff@freenet.columbus.oh.us (Dave Althoff) wrote:
[in response to Win 95 copying OS/2's Apple style GUI]
>
>Interesting observation.  I haven't had the *ahem* opportunity to
>fiddle with Win-95 yet, but I have used a few GUI's.
>
>What I have noticed is that Solaris OpenWindows, AmigaDOS, and OS/2
>are all remarkably similar.  All three are multitasking GUI operating
>systems; all three include some form of CLI shell; and all have very
>similar appearances and use of controls.
>
>The "odd man out" so to speak is the Apple Finder, used in GS/OS and in
>MacOS.  The Finder does not include a CLI shell, uses only a one-button
>mouse, and was not originally intended to multitask.  Which is
>interesting, since the Lisa Office System 7/7 was a multitasking OS,
>but comes closest to the Macintosh Finder.
>
>Just my thoughts.  Any comments?
 
I've never seen Solaris OpenWindows or AmigaDOS, but being being a
Finder user, I had a hard time grasping the concept that the icons
in the Program Manager in Windows 3.1 didn't represent real files.
 
In GS/OS and MacOS, the icons represent real files. OS/2 is largely
like this. There are exceptions, but if you keep all your icons on
disk volumes rather than on the desktop, all is well.
 
In this respect, Windows 3.1 was the "odd man out": it had the
Program/File Manager split, "groups" (groups of icons in a "window")
rather than folders, and no real desktop to speak of.
 
>Windows 3.1 (don't know about 95), on the other hand, requires that
>you use either MS-DOS or the File Manager for everything except
>running programs, and files don't show up in the GUI at all unless
>you create the icons for them.  In fact, under Win3.1, you can have
>icons which do not represent any extant file.
 
So confusing. A GUI is meant to make all computer tasks easier.
Win 3.1 made it more difficult. It was so bad, Microsoft gave up on
it completely and stole most of the OS/2 interface.
 
>But the other GUI-based operating systems were actually designed to
>replace the CLI for even the most advanced operations...in fact,
>making advanced operations easy by representing them graphically.
 
That is the point that Microsoft finally got! They gave up on their
own invention, the Win 3.1 interface, and copied OS/2's (which in
turn bears a striking resemblence to the Finder*). Right down to the
look, feel, and style.
 
The funny thing is, Microsoft acts and Windows 95 users believe that
Bill Gates invented the "integrated" file/icon concept, folders/desktop,
tool bar, multitasking, and the recycling bin (=trash can).
 
 
>--Dave Althoff, ][.
>(who thinks it would be nice to have an Applesoft-environment CLI for
>GS/OS.  In other words, I want BASIC.SYS16 so that I can access HFS
>volumes from Applesoft...)
 
We have several different shells to choose from (I think), such as GNO,
that provide this function - would ORCA Integer BASIC work? There was
also once a GS BASIC, it would be good to have it back.
 
*Actually, Apple users would feel right at home with OS/2. The shredder
 can be positioned on the desktop where the trash can would be, the disk
 icons can be positioned along the right hand side. It even has the
 equivalent of the FST concept (the IFS). The GUI is almost a PC Finder.


-----
The Palmtree BBS  310-453-8726 v.32
Inet: rder@pro-palmtree.cts.com