Jump to content
Just nu i M3-nätverket

Vem var egentligen först?

baby doll

Recommended Posts

Alla brukar säga att Apple med lisa os var görst med GUI men egentligen var väl Xerox först.


Och sen säger de att det var Microsoft som kopierade Apples GUI men var det verkligen så - kopierade egentligen inte både apple och microsoft Xerox bara det att Apple kom först.


Nån som vet mer exakt hur det var

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Xerox hade grunden, men insåg inte potentialen.

Apple utvecklade första "riktiga" GUI utifrån Xerox grund.

Microsoft kopierade Apple.

Microsoft kopierar fortfarande Apple.

Microsoft kommer alltid att kopiera Apple.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hittade denna text. Eventuall faktakoll får ni göra själva...


The Real History of the GUI



1983 On - Other GUIs Hit the Market



Were the Mac and Windows GUIs the only ones on the market? Hardly. In fact, the first consumer-oriented, PC-based GUI was made not by either company, but by VisiCorp, the makers of VisiCalc. Called VisiOn, it debuted in October 1983, shortly before the Lisa, but was crippled by the lack of popular software written to run under it. The same story can be told of DRI’s GEM (Graphical Environment Manager), which appeared in September 1984 and disappeared shortly thereafter, partially because it, like VisiOn, lacked the ability to run DOS apps, and had no software of its own. Worse luck for GEM: Apple didn’t like GEM’s similarity to the Mac desktop, and threatened to sue. Rather than fight, DRI revamped the GEM desktop to get Apple off its back. Both VisiOn and GEM had their proponents, but neither made a major dent in the consumer market, which continued to be dominated by the twin monoliths Apple and Microsoft .



And there was Quarterdeck’s DESQView, the first program to bring multitasking and windowing capabilities to a DOS environment. DESQView wasn’t a full-fledged GUI OS, but its GUI “shell” over DOS won many fans and intrigued many folks at Microsoft, including Gates, who by some accounts based his first iteration of Windows as much or more on VisiOn, GEM, and DESQView than on the Mac interface (this conflicts with the stories passed around the campfires of the Apple fans, who portray Gates as a petty thief who snarled to his Windows team, “Make it look just like a Mac!”). Berkeley Softworks’ GeoWorks (GEOS) is another GUI OS worthy of note; it was used on the Commodore 64, some Apple IIs, and still survives in an altered form as software for the PalmConnect system. GEOS was lauded as a slick, stable operating system, but the lack of software for it – developer software did not appear for six months after GEOS’ debut – ensured that most PC users never gave it a second thought.



Apple was not happy at all with Windows. Even before the system appeared on the shelves, Apple was threatening Microsoft with lawsuits that alleged patent infringement, intellectual theft, what have you. In an ingenious move, Microsoft signed a licensing agreement with Apple that stated Microsoft would not employ Apple technology in Windows 1.0, but made no such agreement for further versions of Windows. It took a while for Apple to realize that Microsoft had thoroughly skunked them; the realization took longer to hit because of Windows’ dismal failure on the consumer market.



Nevertheless, both Apple and Microsoft forged ahead with their own plans for world domination…er, rather, their plans to expand their niche of the PC market. As always, though, these two were not the only bands marching in the parade. In 1985 Commodore launched its Amiga line of home PCs, and won the hearts of millions of users. The Amiga was the first PC to truly introduce the idea of “multimedia” into PC-dom, although since most users didn’t know what to make of their new multimedia capabilities, they played games on it instead. Great-looking games. Amiga’s advanced sound and video capabilities went along with its sophisticated GUI-driven OS (which also featured preemptive multitasking, shared libraries, messaging, scripting, multiple simultaneous line consoles, a real use for the right mouse button, and other features not found in the Apples and IBMs of the day). To add insult to injury, Amiga featured Apple/IBM interface emulation. Apple or IBM users who preferred their old interface could have Amiga mimic that look instead of its own.



So why didn’t Amiga wipe both Apple and IBM/Microsoft off the PC market? As usual, we have a patchwork of reasons. The best guess is that Amiga made the same mistake as the Tucker passenger auto made… it was too far ahead of its time too fast, and couldn’t take advantage of its own capabilities. The heated competition that existed between Amiga and Atari worked to Microsoft’s advantage, as did Amiga’s spotty ability to keep their dealers and customers happy. Adding to Amiga’s problems were the first machines’ failure to settle on a single GUI (one Amiga user tells me that the early models had different interfaces depending on which program was running). But whatever the reasons, Amiga was one sharp puppy, and deserved a better fate – though today Amiga is neither gone nor forgotten; a new OS called “The Digital Environment” is being touted as the next step in GUI-driven operating systems. We may hear from Amiga again before all is said and done.



Yet another mid-80s contender in the GUI wars was the Atari ST. Atari, much better known for their video games, produced a PC that featured the GEM OS. Like the Amiga, the ST couldn’t compete with the big boys, nor could it compete with Amiga for gamers, but its sophisticated sound processing capabilities earned it a niche with audio editors and musicians.



Sometime around the debut of the Amiga, the first UNIX GUI appeared as well. Many UNIX heads had long sneered at the simple-minded, overly convoluted operating systems and playtoy PCs that were populating the consumer market. But some UNIX users decided to see if they could overlay a GUI on UNIX in the same fashion as Microsoft overlaid Windows atop DOS, and thus X was born. X (sometimes called “X Windows,” and sometimes incorrectly called “X for Windows”) was born at MIT, fathered by a Stanford University windowing system called W and mothered by Sun’s “SunView” environment. X became the main graphics system for most RISC-based UNIX operating systems. While X was a well-written and easily handled OS shell, it never settled on a particular “look and feel,” and as a result at least three different interfaces, or “windows managers,” floated around for it.


This isn’t the main reason why X never caught on much outside the UNIX community, but it’s certainly one reason. X is still a viable GUI shell, and has a relatively small but vocal following. X is making something of a resurgence among UNIX users: the battle between “windows managers” has shaken itself out, the interfaces are more polished and easier to use, and it’s very useful for high-end computer graphics production. X is also the underlying GUI for most Linux graphical interfaces. The “several GUIs” are more correctly known as the various *nix windows managers, and users can run desktop environments such as Gnome or KDE for additional functionality. X-driven interfaces are popping up in such non-PC devices as TiVo, Web pads, and PDAs, and one X user speculates that as these devices become more widespread, we may see X actually being used more than either Apple or Windows GUIs.



It’s also worth mentioning that Three Rivers Computing Company manufactured a graphics workstation called PERQ in 1981 that incorporated a UNIX-based GUI, and was marketed in the U.K. by ICL. This GUI actually predates all of the above, including VisiOn, but as far as I know, it was never made available for personal computers.



Completists will point out that IBM’s MVS (Multiple Virtual Systems) mainframe system included an optional program known as ISPF (Interactive Structured Programming Facility) that allowed split-screen windows to be supported on terminal displays. Considering that ISPF was created in the late 1970s, it’s one of the first “windows-like” systems that became available. Of course, it’s highly unlikely that home PC users would have ever seen this.



It’s worth noting that many, many graphically-driven applications were released independently of any of the abovementioned systems. One of the very first was Bill Budge’s Pinball Construction System, which appeared in 1985 for the Atari and quickly became famous among both gamers and programmers for its sophisticated ability to manipulate objects using click-and-drag. Programs like PCS made their mark on the operating systems that followed them into the PC marketplace.

“I had an enormous reservoir of goodwill towards Microsoft because it and it alone – unlike Xerox, Apple, Amiga and many others who tried before it – was the one that finally delivered a usable graphical interface on ubiquitous, inexpensive hardware. Microsoft often wasn't the first, and its software wasn't often the best, but it was inarguably the one that delivered on the early promise of personal computing in a way no other software maker did. Microsoft – more than any other company – opened up computing for ordinary people. I loved Microsoft for that.”




– Fred Langa

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tycker nog att xerox´s version är ganska lik apples.


Men sen läste jag att Jobs hyrde folk från xerox för att jobba med Lisa.


Nån har också sagt att Apple stämde Microsft men att Gates o co vann, men sen så har man även hört att de gjorde en uppgörelse om att Microsoft skulle fortsätta göra program till Apple.


Men om word först kom till Apple, och detta senare än när de i sådana fall skrev det avtalet, varför undrar jag?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Xerox var först, Apple stal från Xerox, Microsoft licensierade vissa GUI element från Apple och släppte WIndows 1.0, varpå Apple tyckte att Microsoft inte hade följt avtalet och stämde Microsoft, Apple förlorade. Det var då som Bill Gates skrev dom bevingade orden;


"Hey, Steve, just because you broke into Xerox's house before I did and took the TV doesn't mean I can't go in later and take the stereo."


-- Bill Gates, responding to Jobs' complaint that the Windows GUI looks way too much like the Mac's (MacWeek, March 14, 1989). Gates was referencing Apple's theft of the computer GUI idea from Xerox PARC's Alto computer.


Att Microsoft "stjäl" från Apple brukar vara något som anförs av svagsinta personer som inte inser hur en marknadsekonomi fungerar.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>>Reefer, Jag har försökt tolka dina, ganska bestämda, påståenden:


Apple stal från Xerox

Microsoft stal från Xerox


Så fungerar marknadsekonomi


Microsoft stal från Apple

Så fungerar inte marknadsekonomi


I det sista påståendet är ordet "stjäla"

nu fel (visas med hjälp av citationstecken)


Kan du förtydliga ditt resonemang lite?



Link to comment
Share on other sites

Läs texterna jag länkade till om du vill veta hur det ligger till hellre än att få Reefers egna lilla bild av verkligheten.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

thevil, har kollat dina länkar och uppskattade särskilt Bill Atkinsons bilder på Lisas utveckling.

Mitt förra inlägg handlade nog mer om att försöka förstå Reefers inlägg, än att lära mig något om utveckling av olika gränssnitt.



Link to comment
Share on other sites


This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Create New...