Re: [OT] Windows up-dating - Mozilla

This is a discussion on Re: [OT] Windows up-dating - Mozilla ; squaredancer wrote: > On 27/04/2007 06:57, CET - what odd quirk of fate caused Brian Heinrich > to generate the following:? : >> [F'up set to m.g. . . .] >> >> On 2007-04-26 19:11 (-0600 UTC), Ken Whiton wrote: ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 11 of 11

Thread: Re: [OT] Windows up-dating

  1. Re: [OT] Windows up-dating

    squaredancer wrote:
    > On 27/04/2007 06:57, CET - what odd quirk of fate caused Brian Heinrich
    > to generate the following:? :
    >> [F'up set to m.g. . . .]
    >>
    >> On 2007-04-26 19:11 (-0600 UTC), Ken Whiton wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>> *-* On Thu, 26 Apr 2007 08:37:34 -0600,
    >>> *-* In Article hYidnRY0Es6zJK3bnZ2dnUVZ_jqdnZ2d@mozilla.org,
    >>> *-* Brian Heinrich wrote
    >>> *-* About [OT] Windows up-dating (was: Re: Interface changed for no
    >>> reason?)
    >>>
    >>>

    > <>
    >
    >>
    >> Which begs the same question all over again: How is it that when M$
    >> does something, it's new and revolutionary, but when other
    >> companies/OSs did the same thing several years previously (and, in
    >> some cases, did it better), it passed without either fanfare or notice?
    >>
    >>

    > I seem to recall that the *whole* Windows-concept was stolen from ...
    > was it Apple??... and announced as revolutionary by Billy the Pincher
    >
    > reg



    Not 'stolen' in a sense. Bill Gates and Microsoft licensed the Apple Gui
    to produce Windows 1. They then decided by Windows 3 that the licensing
    was no longer required. Apple sued them in the great 'look and feel'
    suit. The courts decided that although the 'look and feel' were similar
    in both products (Windows 3 and the Apple interface) there was enough
    diversity in the code to conclude that Windows 3 had arrived at the end
    product on its own merits.

    It was also revealed in the action that Apple had based part of it's
    work on the (Sun X?) interface/code

    So, while the Apple interface may have given Bill a target to shoot for
    and a general 'idea' of what he wanted, Windows is more of a derivative
    work from DOS than from Apple.

  2. Re: [OT] Windows up-dating

    Moz Champion (Dan) wrote:

    > squaredancer wrote:
    >
    >> I seem to recall that the *whole* Windows-concept was stolen from ...
    >> was it Apple??... and announced as revolutionary by Billy the Pincher

    >
    > Not 'stolen' in a sense. Bill Gates and Microsoft licensed the Apple Gui
    > to produce Windows 1. They then decided by Windows 3 that the licensing
    > was no longer required. Apple sued them in the great 'look and feel'
    > suit. The courts decided that although the 'look and feel' were similar
    > in both products (Windows 3 and the Apple interface) there was enough
    > diversity in the code to conclude that Windows 3 had arrived at the end
    > product on its own merits.
    >
    > It was also revealed in the action that Apple had based part of it's
    > work on the (Sun X?) interface/code


    No, they got it from Xerox. Can't remember any details of purchase/theft.

    > So, while the Apple interface may have given Bill a target to shoot for
    > and a general 'idea' of what he wanted, Windows is more of a derivative
    > work from DOS than from Apple.



    --
    Cheers, Bev (Happy Linux User #85683, Slackware 11.0)
    _|-_|-_|-_|-_|-_|-_|-_|-_|-_|-_|-_|-_
    Too many freaks, not enough circuses.

  3. Re: [OT] Windows up-dating

    The Real Bev wrote:
    > Moz Champion (Dan) wrote:
    >
    >> squaredancer wrote:
    >>
    >>> I seem to recall that the *whole* Windows-concept was stolen from ...
    >>> was it Apple??... and announced as revolutionary by Billy the Pincher

    >>
    >> Not 'stolen' in a sense. Bill Gates and Microsoft licensed the Apple
    >> Gui to produce Windows 1. They then decided by Windows 3 that the
    >> licensing was no longer required. Apple sued them in the great 'look
    >> and feel' suit. The courts decided that although the 'look and feel'
    >> were similar in both products (Windows 3 and the Apple interface)
    >> there was enough diversity in the code to conclude that Windows 3 had
    >> arrived at the end product on its own merits.
    >>
    >> It was also revealed in the action that Apple had based part of it's
    >> work on the (Sun X?) interface/code

    >
    > No, they got it from Xerox. Can't remember any details of purchase/theft.
    >
    >> So, while the Apple interface may have given Bill a target to shoot
    >> for and a general 'idea' of what he wanted, Windows is more of a
    >> derivative work from DOS than from Apple.

    >
    >



    Xerox Sparc maybe? my memory is a little fuzzy on that detail

  4. Re: [OT] Windows up-dating

    On 4/27/2007 9:26 AM, Moz Champion (Dan) wrote:

    > Xerox Sparc maybe? my memory is a little fuzzy on that detail


    XEROX PARC (Palo Alto Research Center). I believe they obtained the GUI
    by hiring some of the PARC people. The use of a mouse was first
    introduced by Doug Engelbart(sp?) at the Stanford Research Institute.
    He also originated the concept of "links", tho' it may have had a
    different name.


    --
    Irwin

    Please do not use my email address to make requests for help.

    Knowledge Base: http://kb.mozillazine.org/Main_Page

  5. Re: [OT] Windows up-dating

    In ,
    Irwin Greenwald wrote:

    > On 4/27/2007 9:26 AM, Moz Champion (Dan) wrote:
    >
    > > Xerox Sparc maybe? my memory is a little fuzzy on that detail

    >
    > XEROX PARC (Palo Alto Research Center). I believe they obtained the
    > GUI by hiring some of the PARC people.


    How much they did or didn't get from PARC's Smalltalk is one of those
    arguments which is never resolved. Here's one interesting take on it,
    from a guy who worked for PARC before working on the Macintosh.



  6. Re: [OT] Windows up-dating

    The Real Bev wrote:
    > Moz Champion (Dan) wrote:
    >
    >> squaredancer wrote:
    >>
    >>> I seem to recall that the *whole* Windows-concept was stolen from ...
    >>> was it Apple??... and announced as revolutionary by Billy the Pincher

    >>
    >> Not 'stolen' in a sense. Bill Gates and Microsoft licensed the Apple
    >> Gui to produce Windows 1. They then decided by Windows 3 that the
    >> licensing was no longer required. Apple sued them in the great 'look
    >> and feel' suit. The courts decided that although the 'look and feel'
    >> were similar in both products (Windows 3 and the Apple interface)
    >> there was enough diversity in the code to conclude that Windows 3 had
    >> arrived at the end product on its own merits.
    >>
    >> It was also revealed in the action that Apple had based part of it's
    >> work on the (Sun X?) interface/code

    >
    > No, they got it from Xerox. Can't remember any details of purchase/theft.
    >
    >> So, while the Apple interface may have given Bill a target to shoot
    >> for and a general 'idea' of what he wanted, Windows is more of a
    >> derivative work from DOS than from Apple.

    >
    >

    It was Based on an "idea" Xerox Parc Project. some one got a look at the
    project from Apple. The difference is Apple created the design based on
    note That Apple Took. And hear is the kicker, Xerox decided the idea
    didn't have merit and didn't do anything with it. They choose to get
    into printers and copiers.

    The difference is That Gates licensed the software, for a While, then
    quit and said sue me. By that time MS was larger than apple and had
    everyone in their hip pocket. Now MS and Wal-Mart are the two worst
    companies so far as morals concerned in the entire world.

    --
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Phillip M. Jones, CET http://www.vpea.org
    If it's "fixed", don't "break it"! mailtojones@kimbanet.com
    http://www.kimbanet.com/~pjones/default.htm
    Mac G4-500, OSX.3.9 Mac 17" PowerBook G4-1.67 Gb, OSX.4.8
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

  7. Re: [OT] Windows up-dating

    Moz Champion (Dan) wrote:
    > The Real Bev wrote:
    >> Moz Champion (Dan) wrote:
    >>
    >>> squaredancer wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> I seem to recall that the *whole* Windows-concept was stolen from
    >>>> ... was it Apple??... and announced as revolutionary by Billy the
    >>>> Pincher
    >>>
    >>> Not 'stolen' in a sense. Bill Gates and Microsoft licensed the Apple
    >>> Gui to produce Windows 1. They then decided by Windows 3 that the
    >>> licensing was no longer required. Apple sued them in the great 'look
    >>> and feel' suit. The courts decided that although the 'look and feel'
    >>> were similar in both products (Windows 3 and the Apple interface)
    >>> there was enough diversity in the code to conclude that Windows 3 had
    >>> arrived at the end product on its own merits.
    >>>
    >>> It was also revealed in the action that Apple had based part of it's
    >>> work on the (Sun X?) interface/code

    >>
    >> No, they got it from Xerox. Can't remember any details of
    >> purchase/theft.
    >>
    >>> So, while the Apple interface may have given Bill a target to shoot
    >>> for and a general 'idea' of what he wanted, Windows is more of a
    >>> derivative work from DOS than from Apple.

    >>
    >>

    >
    >
    > Xerox Sparc maybe? my memory is a little fuzzy on that detail.


    Xerox PARC

    --
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Phillip M. Jones, CET http://www.vpea.org
    If it's "fixed", don't "break it"! mailtojones@kimbanet.com
    http://www.kimbanet.com/~pjones/default.htm
    Mac G4-500, OSX.3.9 Mac 17" PowerBook G4-1.67 Gb, OSX.4.8
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

  8. Re: [OT] Windows up-dating

    Moz Champion (Dan) wrote:
    > The Real Bev wrote:
    >> Moz Champion (Dan) wrote:


    >>> It was also revealed in the action that Apple had based part of it's
    >>> work on the (Sun X?) interface/code

    >>
    >> No, they got it from Xerox. Can't remember any details of
    >> purchase/theft.
    >>
    >>> So, while the Apple interface may have given Bill a target to shoot
    >>> for and a general 'idea' of what he wanted, Windows is more of a
    >>> derivative work from DOS than from Apple.

    >
    > Xerox Sparc maybe? my memory is a little fuzzy on that detail


    Nope. SPARC is Sun's Scalable Processor ARChitecture, a 23 and 64 bit
    RISC CPU design.

    You've thinking of Xerox PARC (Palo Alto Research Center), the Star
    workstation, and the Smalltalk operating environment.

    The Mac interface owes a lot to Smalltalk, and I believe a bunch of
    folks from Xerox PARC went to work in the Mac group at Apple.

    Xerox PARC pioneered the use of bit-mapped displays and the mouse as an
    input device, so *lots* of things owe them a debt.
    ______
    Dennis




  9. Re: [OT] Windows up-dating

    Dennis McCunney wrote:

    *sigh*

    > Nope. SPARC is Sun's Scalable Processor ARChitecture, a 23 and 64 bit


    s/23/32/

    > You've thinking of Xerox PARC (Palo Alto Research Center), the Star


    s/you've/you're/

    I used to know how to type...
    ______
    Dennis

  10. Re: [OT] Windows up-dating

    On 2007-04-27 04:07 (-0600 UTC), Moz Champion (Dan) wrote:



    > It was also revealed in the action that Apple had based part of it's
    > work on the (Sun X?) interface/code


    If memory serves, it was whatever was being developed at the IBM (IIRC) lab
    at Palo Alto.

    The story is actually pretty involved, FWIR. . . .



    --
    /b.

    String quartets don't march very well.
    --Donald Barthelme, /The Dead Father/


  11. Re: [OT] Windows up-dating

    On 2007-04-27 08:41 (-0600 UTC), The Real Bev wrote:



    >> It was also revealed in the action that Apple had based part of it's
    >> work on the (Sun X?) interface/code

    >
    > No, they got it from Xerox. Can't remember any details of purchase/theft.


    I thought it was IBM (and can't check right now)?

    IIRC, Jobs (?) was impressed by the work being done at Palo Alto and Apple
    eventually hired some of the people who'd worked there. However, IASTRT
    that the work on which Mac OS was based was not intended for production,
    which would make things a bit different than the agreement between M$ and
    Apple. . . .



    --
    /b.

    String quartets don't march very well.
    --Donald Barthelme, /The Dead Father/


+ Reply to Thread