Richard Der (rder@pro-palmtree.cts.com) wrote:
: Jobs might have got the GUI from Xerox (according to "The Triumpth
: of the Nerds" Xerox executives didn't believe the GUI was the wave
: of the future, thought it was a flop, and invited Jobs to take a
: look over the protestations of their programmers! The truth is more
: like Xerox gave it away than Jobs stealing it.)
:
: Compare that to Windows 95. The interface is virtually identical to
: that of OS/2. OS/2's interface was always better than Windows' (and
: closer to the Apple GUI).
:
: They didn't steal from Apple, they stole from IBM.
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.
What I have noticed is that the MacOS Finder, Lisa Office System, GS/OS,
and AmigaDOS...and to a lesser degree, OS/2...are designed so that the GUI
gives you full access to all files, and to virtually all file management
activities. In fact, the Finder does it so well that Apple didn't think
they even needed a CLI; and AmigaDOS has a CLI...in fact, can run REXX
scripts...but most users never have to use it. Under OS/2 and Solaris
OpenWindows, there are file management utilities readily available which
provide the necessary file management operations, though under OS/2 I
often find it easier to use the CLI for such complicated procedures as
copying files between directories. Like Windows 3.1, the windows under
OS/2 are not necessarily hard-wired to the equivalent file directories,
and many files don't even show up under the GUI.
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.
Win3.1 was obviously intended to serve as a launching pad for programs,
not for an operating environment. Sort of like At Ease on the Macintosh.
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.
Just my thoughts. Any comments?
--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...)
--
/-\ Celebrating the International Year of the Roller Coaster
/XXX\ /X\ /X\_ _ /XX\_ _ _ _____
/XXXXX\ /XXX\ _/XXXX\_ /X\ /XXXXX\ /X\ /X\ /XXXXX
_/XXXXXXX\__/XXXXX\/XXXXXXXX\_/XXX\_/XXXXXXX\__/XXX\_/XXX\_/\_/XXXXXX