Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : How high will Microsoft fly? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: John F. who wrote (41693)	4/10/2000 2:00:00 PM
From: abbigail	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 74651

Dear John F: Thanks for the history lesson, I guess. I guess your point is Microsoft drove these "other Windows options" out of business? This is presumptuous (nice word eh?) is it not? Poor poor Apple, poor poor Lisa, poor poor Xerox, poor poor other Windows options, poor poor Poor. abbigail <: \|

To: John F. who wrote (41693)	4/11/2000 8:56:00 PM
From: Hal Rubel	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74651

Windows RE:"It was not Microsoft that came up with Windows, although Microsoft would like everyone to think they pioneered the technology. Apple introduced it on the high end Lisa line and then, several years later, ported it over to their Macintosh line in 1984." With respect, Apple does not use a windows type interface. The best comparison to windows would be Unix. Windows and Unix run each program as a process within a window, hence the term "Windows," which Microsoft has tried to patent. Apple runs applications outside a process window in a desktop document mode. Thus, on a Mac you would typically think and act in terms of, lets say, a wisiwug word processor document overlapping or laying alongside a spreadsheet document, just as if they were real paper documents on your real desktop. When Mac people say that they prefer the Apple desktop motif to the windows environment, this is part of what they mean. They mean that they prefer the virtual document reality of the apple concept over the process-in-a-window oriented MS/Unix approach because it seems more natural to them. After all is said and done, most folks don't get too deep into the OS. The more transparent, the better. It's like a refrigerator. Most of us don't buy a refrigerator to learn about refrigeration. (Show me the beer!) Imagine driving a car using a windows approach! It's not for most of us. On the other hand, many other activities lend themselves nicely to a process-in-a-window approach. Different strokes for different folks, otherwise the lack an Apple alternative would have brought the roof down on questionable MSFT business practices years ago. I seems to me that Microsoft's implementation of windows shows a strong deference to the engineering mentality that built it. After all, Windows was not designed to compete with Apple, it was designed to be an alternative to Unix that Microsoft could control. That is why Windows is not considered too terribly innovative by people who do not own shares in Microsoft. There is still a way to go to make the product as truly user friendly as it could be. Hal PS: Much of the Icon concept as envisioned between Apple and Microsoft show similar differences. Again, Microsoft icons have more in common with icons in Unix, I feel. Those of you who use these various platforms may also agree. H.