Re: Desktop Metaphor
On Tue, Oct 30, 2018 at 01:14:32AM +, Bill Gunshannon via cctalk wrote: > > On 10/29/18 8:59 PM, Tomasz Rola via cctalk wrote: [...] > > and there are packages for dosbox, qemu and simhm albeit I cannot say > > if versions are acceptable. The rest could perhaps be compiled from > > source? > > > I use SIMH a lot. I never rely on the prebuilt stuff on any of the > BSD's or Linux. They always tend to be several releases back. Yes, this is how I abuse Lisp environments. But I do not shy away from having prebuilts as done by package maintainers - they know their shit and I can have something which should work. I then use a mix of sh snippets to start shell with proper combination of paths to use one built by me or just normal shell to have the default, just in case I screw up. -- Regards, Tomasz Rola -- ** A C programmer asked whether computer had Buddha's nature. ** ** As the answer, master did "rm -rif" on the programmer's home** ** directory. And then the C programmer became enlightened... ** ** ** ** Tomasz Rola mailto:tomasz_r...@bigfoot.com **
Re: Desktop Metaphor
On 10/29/18 8:59 PM, Tomasz Rola via cctalk wrote: > On Mon, Oct 29, 2018 at 05:43:37PM +0100, Holm Tiffe via cctalk wrote: > [...] >> For mission critical stuff this may be ok, but what's the >> advantage for the desktop if you can't even run Virtualbox or Qemu, >> simh, cpmsim, dosbox and other related stuff? >> The same problem on Dragonfly, Nice File system (Hammer,Hammer2) >> but > Out of curiosity I have browsed a what is supposedly a mirror of > ports, say, this one: > https://ftp.fr.openbsd.org/pub/OpenBSD/6.4/packages/amd64/ > > and there are packages for dosbox, qemu and simhm albeit I cannot say > if versions are acceptable. The rest could perhaps be compiled from > source? > I use SIMH a lot. I never rely on the prebuilt stuff on any of the BSD's or Linux. They always tend to be several releases back. bill
Re: Desktop Metaphor
On Mon, Oct 29, 2018 at 05:43:37PM +0100, Holm Tiffe via cctalk wrote: [...] > For mission critical stuff this may be ok, but what's the > advantage for the desktop if you can't even run Virtualbox or Qemu, > simh, cpmsim, dosbox and other related stuff? > The same problem on Dragonfly, Nice File system (Hammer,Hammer2) > but Out of curiosity I have browsed a what is supposedly a mirror of ports, say, this one: https://ftp.fr.openbsd.org/pub/OpenBSD/6.4/packages/amd64/ and there are packages for dosbox, qemu and simhm albeit I cannot say if versions are acceptable. The rest could perhaps be compiled from source? -- Regards, Tomasz Rola -- ** A C programmer asked whether computer had Buddha's nature. ** ** As the answer, master did "rm -rif" on the programmer's home** ** directory. And then the C programmer became enlightened... ** ** ** ** Tomasz Rola mailto:tomasz_r...@bigfoot.com **
Re: Desktop Metaphor
Chuck Guzis via cctalk wrote: > On 10/23/18 3:29 PM, Torfinn Ingolfsen via cctalk wrote: > > >> FreeBSD may not have the installed base of Linux but it has a its fans. > > > > Yes, this workstation runs FreeBSD 10.4 and Xfce. > > I prefer OpenBSD myself for mission-critical stuff--the nearly paranoid > attitude to new software is unusual to say the least. Even old > packages that have had demonstrated security issues are omitted. You > want to use telnet? Good, find a version somewhere and convert and > compile it yourself--we're not even going to give you a telnet client, > much less a host. > > Was VirtualBox or QEMU ever offered as a standard package on OpenBSD? I > don't think so... > > --Chuck > For mission critical stuff this may be ok, but what's the advantage for the desktop if you can't even run Virtualbox or Qemu, simh, cpmsim, dosbox and other related stuff? The same problem on Dragonfly, Nice File system (Hammer,Hammer2) but Regards, Holm -- Technik Service u. Handel Tiffe, www.tsht.de, Holm Tiffe, Freiberger Straße 42, 09600 Oberschöna, USt-Id: DE253710583 i...@tsht.de Fax +49 3731 74200 Tel +49 3731 74222 Mobil: 0172 8790 741
Re: Desktop Metaphor
Torfinn Ingolfsen via cctalk wrote: > On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 10:16 PM Richard Loken via cctalk > wrote: > > > > I am replying to this email on a FreeBSD 10.3 box and Motif. I don't > > know what FreeBSD runs out of the box because I immediately delete it > > and install Motif. > > FreeBSD doesn't run *any* graphical user interface out of the box. > What you end up with after install of the FreeBSD OS is a console with > a login prompt. > As any _real_ operating system should be, IMNSHO. > > After you have logged in, you can (of course) install Xorg and your > selection of desktop environments (or a wm + extras if you prefer > that) via the package system (or ports, if you prefer to wait for > compiling from source). > > > FreeBSD may not have the installed base of Linux but it has a its fans. > > Yes, this workstation runs FreeBSD 10.4 and Xfce. > -- > Regards, > Torfinn Ingolfsen FreeBSD 11.2-stable and Mate Desktop here. Regards, Holm -- Technik Service u. Handel Tiffe, www.tsht.de, Holm Tiffe, Freiberger Straße 42, 09600 Oberschöna, USt-Id: DE253710583 i...@tsht.de Fax +49 3731 74200 Tel +49 3731 74222 Mobil: 0172 8790 741
Re: Desktop Metaphor
> Liam Proven wrote: > On Tue, 23 Oct 2018 at 18:59, Paul Berger via cctalk > wrote: >> >> This is my issue with a lot of Linux distros they seem to try to hard to >> look and work like mac or like windows while I would rather have them >> look and work like the xwindows I knew and loved. One of my biggest >> aggravations is cut and paste I would very much rather it worked more >> like it used to on X. > > If you want it old-style, build it old-style. > > Install the minimal or server version of Debian, Ubuntu, Fedora, > whatever you want, then install X.org and your window manager of > choice. > > This is how I have been experimentally assembling GNUstep desktops for > years now. Have to concur with this. Even the "minimalist" (i.e. non-GNOME/KDE) *nix "desktop environment" projects these days are getting so bloated that I've given up bothering with them and set up an X environment one component at a time. Currently running Window Maker with SpaceFM and ROXTerm; getting it all properly set up and tweaked to my liking took some doing, but the payoff was well worth it. Now if I could only excise the GTK3 blight entirely, I'd really be set.
Re: Desktop Metaphor
On Wed, 24 Oct 2018 at 17:35, Rick Bensene wrote: > > Earlier, I wrote: > >> The whole desktop metaphor UI existed long before Windows 95 in non-Unix > >> implementations by Xerox PARC (Palo Alto Research >>Center) with the > >> pioneering Xerox Alto, introduced in 1973, which implemented Alan Kay's > >> concepts for the desktop metaphor that >>were postulated in 1970 using > >> Smalltalk as the core operating system. > > To which Liam P. responded: > >That, again, *was the point I was trying to make*. > > >We used to have a ton of prior art and alternative designs, and today, > >they have all gone, with basically no impact. > > I get the point, now. > > I was looking at it more from a historical standpoint than from the view of > /today/. I totally agree with Liam as far as every other desktop paradigm > prior to Win95 is dead from a practical standpoint, except possibly the (and > it can be debated) the Apple desktop environment. > > I believe that the history of the desktop metaphor prior to Win95 certainly > had an impact on the development of the Win95 desktop environment, and those > concepts carry through to today, but in terms of desktop UIs created after > Win95, I can't argue that any aren't derivatives of the Win95 environment. Oh good. I am relieved. :-) For clarity, for example -- GNOME 3 isn't Win95-like. But it was designed by removing the bits MS said were its patented IP -- taskbar with buttons for each app window, start menu, etc. -- and replacing them with a dock-like app launcher/switcher and a full-screen iconic app launcher. It's also very instructive to look at the mockups of GNOME 3 before release: http://www.vuntz.net/journal/post/2008/10/22/494-desktop-shell-from-the-user-experience-hackfest-general-overview https://wiki.gnome.org/ThreePointZero/DesignHistory https://wiki.gnome.org/Projects/GnomeShell/Design/Iterations/AppBrowsingAlternative https://wiki.gnome.org/Projects/GnomeShell/Design/Iterations/AppBrowsingAlternative02 Very text-heavy and cluttered. Then the test versions of Unity started to appear in late 2010: http://www.webupd8.org/2011/03/ubuntu-1104-alpha-3-is-out-screenshots.html Then look how GNOME 3.0 looked! https://www.gnome-look.org/p/1123050/ https://www.gnome-look.org/s/Gnome/p/022/ Unity, of course, is very visibly Mac OS X-like. Single panel at the top, containing an app name at the left, then a global menu bar, then status icons. Down the left, a Dock-like launcher containing both app launchers and running apps (with an indicator to show they're open), folder shortcuts and minimised windows. OS X defaults to putting this at the bottom but I personally move it to the left -- more efficient use of space on widescreens, and doesn't clash with menu bars on the right. Window controls are on the left, so that if a window is maximised, they don't get lose in among the indicators on the right... but again, like on a Mac. (NeXT's dock was on the right, but then its scrollbars were on the left. There was also a wharf for minimised windows at the bottom, which is a bit confusing.) To keep things a _little_ different from OS X, Ubuntu's app name is truncated, the global menus are hidden until mouseover, and the dock doesn't grow or shrink, but these are fairly superficial differences. The GNOME foundation refused Ubuntu's attempted code contributions, but I think that it's visible that they took design cues from Unity. But GNOME is trying to do something a little different. There's an almost frantic effort to remove anything which isn't essential. Generic app-global functions are moved into a single menu in the top panel; there's no global menu bar. The launcher/dock thing is only visible in overview mode, in other words, more aggressively hidden than mere autohide. Maximise/minimise buttons are hidden by default, and menu bars are discouraged, as are separate toolbars and separate title bars -- all are merged into a single strip. This is a desktop for people who don't do much window management. The tooling is for people who run apps full-screen all the time, and switch between them. I don't work like that, so it annoys me. But I digress. I think the points here are two-fold: [1] There is one extant FOSS Linux desktop that's totally un-Windows-like... but the influence, albeit 2nd-hand, of the Mac is plainly visible. Additionally, it was created by removing elements of a Win95-style desktop and changing the functions of what was left, and it shows. [2] The eventual relative popularity of GNOME 3 at least demonstrates people's willingness to _try_ something different if there are benefits. Budgie, TBH, I don't understand. I don't know why it exists. It's basically a very jiggered-about Win9x desktop, with a sort of top-panel-cum-taskbar and a dock bolted on. It does nothing you couldn't achieve fa
RE: Desktop Metaphor
Earlier, I wrote: >> The whole desktop metaphor UI existed long before Windows 95 in non-Unix >> implementations by Xerox PARC (Palo Alto Research >>Center) with the >> pioneering Xerox Alto, introduced in 1973, which implemented Alan Kay's >> concepts for the desktop metaphor that >>were postulated in 1970 using >> Smalltalk as the core operating system. To which Liam P. responded: >That, again, *was the point I was trying to make*. >We used to have a ton of prior art and alternative designs, and today, >they have all gone, with basically no impact. I get the point, now. I was looking at it more from a historical standpoint than from the view of /today/. I totally agree with Liam as far as every other desktop paradigm prior to Win95 is dead from a practical standpoint, except possibly the (and it can be debated) the Apple desktop environment. I believe that the history of the desktop metaphor prior to Win95 certainly had an impact on the development of the Win95 desktop environment, and those concepts carry through to today, but in terms of desktop UIs created after Win95, I can't argue that any aren't derivatives of the Win95 environment. -Rick
Smalltalk (was: Desktop Metaphor)
Josh Dersch wrote on Tue, 23 Oct 2018 07:25:41 -0700 > I've never seen evidence for any Smalltalk having a desktop metaphor (as in > the discussion at hand -- icons and folders representing files and/or data, > not merely windows, etc.). It's certainly possible that the platform was > used for experimentation with such within PARC or elsewhere, but no > smalltalk images I've seen contain anything like that. Is your thesis > available to read anywhere? One complication is that the meaning of terms change over time. I am typing this in Smalltalk (Celeste email app in Squeak 4.1) and it doesn't use icons. Smalltalk-72 had a read-eval-print interface but many applications written in it experimented with different GUI ideas. There were tests for the overlapping windows that Alan Kay described as "like papers on a messy desktop". This got filtered into "Smalltalk had a desktop metaphor" but that is confusing since by the time Star came out the term meant something that was a step in the direction of Microsoft Bob or Magic Cap. Some Smalltalk applications used icons in the sense of the MacPaint tool bar. In fact, the term "icon" was invented by David C. Smith for his 1975 thesis: http://worrydream.com/refs/Smith%20-%20Pygmalion.pdf This had icons, though these were used in an environment more like Scratch than a desktop (it didn't have windows, for example, and the icons were related to the various application domains rather than operating system functions). But given the role David played in the development of the Star, I would call this a part of the future desktop metaphor. Smalltalk-76 got overlapping windows and popup menus as part of its basic system and the command line got replaced with a select text and execute or print scheme, later used in Oberon as well.The windows had title tabs (like later used in BeOS) and they could be collapsed to just the tab or expanded into the full window. Not quite icons on a desktop, but not too different either. I don't know if Smalltalk-76 had multiple projects (desktops) but -78 certainly had them. When seen from another project they were a small window with a tiny view of the project and any windows it had. Those looked a lot like icons, though they were literal representations and not symbolic ones. See figure 11 in: https://freudenbergs.de/bert/publications/Ingalls-2014-Smalltalk78.pdf By the way, in the posts about the improvements from PARC to Apple there was no mention of drag-n-drop, which to me was the most important difference in practice. My conclusion: Smalltalk didn't (and still doesn't) have a desktop metaphor but was a key element in its creation. -- Jecel
Re: Desktop Metaphor
On 10/23/18 3:29 PM, Torfinn Ingolfsen via cctalk wrote: >> FreeBSD may not have the installed base of Linux but it has a its fans. > > Yes, this workstation runs FreeBSD 10.4 and Xfce. I prefer OpenBSD myself for mission-critical stuff--the nearly paranoid attitude to new software is unusual to say the least. Even old packages that have had demonstrated security issues are omitted. You want to use telnet? Good, find a version somewhere and convert and compile it yourself--we're not even going to give you a telnet client, much less a host. Was VirtualBox or QEMU ever offered as a standard package on OpenBSD? I don't think so... --Chuck
Re: Desktop Metaphor
On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 10:16 PM Richard Loken via cctalk wrote: > > I am replying to this email on a FreeBSD 10.3 box and Motif. I don't > know what FreeBSD runs out of the box because I immediately delete it > and install Motif. FreeBSD doesn't run *any* graphical user interface out of the box. What you end up with after install of the FreeBSD OS is a console with a login prompt. As any _real_ operating system should be, IMNSHO. After you have logged in, you can (of course) install Xorg and your selection of desktop environments (or a wm + extras if you prefer that) via the package system (or ports, if you prefer to wait for compiling from source). > FreeBSD may not have the installed base of Linux but it has a its fans. Yes, this workstation runs FreeBSD 10.4 and Xfce. -- Regards, Torfinn Ingolfsen
Re: Desktop Metaphor
On Tue, 23 Oct 2018, ben via cctalk wrote: Modern computers are just to play with on the web and read mail and download DR WHO. Remember when "personal" computers were on a par with model trains for "practicality" and "usefulness". I've got the Doctor Who MP4 files on a SATA III drive plugged into a Seagate GoFlex-TV streamer. -- Grumpy Ol' Fred ci...@xenosoft.com
Re: Desktop Metaphor
On 23/10/2018, Geoffrey Oltmans via cctalk wrote (in part): > I’d say that Windows 95’s UI blew the doors off of anything I’d used up that > point in terms of usability. Interesting... I recall gathering around a colleague's PC many years ago. One of us noticed his screen and said "Hey, you switched to OS/2." He replied, "No. Win95". It really fooled a lot of us. N.
Re: Desktop Metaphor
On Tue, 10/23/18, Paul Berger via cctalk wrote: > This is my issue with a lot of Linux distros they seem to try to hard to > look and work like mac or like windows while I would rather have them > look and work like the xwindows I knew and loved. One of my biggest > aggravations is cut and paste I would very much rather it worked more > like it used to on X. Amen Brother! I mostly use rio (based on the same named windowing system on Plan 9) for my window manager so at least I get to avoid the dancing frogs. But back in the '80s we were using a much nicer approach to cut-and-paste on X than the commercial guys ever managed. Time to take my cane back inside now that I've finished yelling at the kiddies to get off my lawn. BLS
Re: Desktop Metaphor
On 10/23/2018 10:59 AM, Paul Berger via cctalk wrote: This is my issue with a lot of Linux distros they seem to try to hard to look and work like mac or like windows while I would rather have them look and work like the xwindows I knew and loved. One of my biggest aggravations is cut and paste I would very much rather it worked more like it used to on X. I don't know what we're doing differently, but am and have been using what I know to be standard X11 primary selection buffer with middle click to paste. I do periodically use the actual clipboard in combination with the primary selection buffer so that I can hold two things at once. I've also started selecting content, copying the primary selection to the secondary buffer for part of my workflow. Aside: Is anyone aware of anything that uses the secondary selection buffer. -- Grant. . . . unix || die
RE: Desktop Metaphor
Curious Marc wrote: >Curiously, the Xerox Alto has quite advanced GUI and object oriented >programming (including the smalltalk windowing environment), >but no desktop >metaphor or icons that I have seen. I believe desktop metaphors appear later >in the Alto commercial successor, the >Xerox Star, and in the Apple Lisa, >which bears strong Xerox influences. Xerox’s desktop metaphor pushes the >object concept a bit far, >while the Lisa got what would become the modern >ubiquitous version of the concept almost dead on. Did I get this approximately >>right? Are there any other GUI desktop metaphors that predates this? Marc is correct here. My memory was faulty in my original posting about the "Desktop Metaphor". The Alto, at least in its initial incarnation didn't really have a true desktop metaphor, though prototypes of the desktop environment may have run on it internally to PARC. The Star, which was a commercial product (as opposed to Alto), definitely did, and that's where my memory was faulty.Thanks, Marc, for pointing out my error. A place I worked for many, many years ago was involved with Smalltalk and OO database development. They had a working Xerox Smalltalk machine, and that's what I remembered the desktop metaphor from, but was thinking it was an Alto. After doing a little digging through old notes, I realized my memory of the machine was incorrect, and that the machine they had was a Star. I remember tinkering around with the Star, which by the time I was at the company, had been pretty much put out to pasture. The environment was quite intuitive, and easy to use, though it took me a little while to get my mind wrapped around the concept of Smalltalk, because I had no exposure to object environments prior to playing with the machine. I was surprised at how responsive the machine was considering that the tech in it by that time was pretty old. It was definitely an education playing with it. I wonder whatever happened to that machine? Hmmm...maybe I should send out some Emails to folks that I worked with back then. The only other desktop metaphor environment that existed around this same time was at Tektronix, though the work at Tektronix was slightly behind the work at Xerox, was heavily based on the developments at Xerox, and the work was done under license from Xerox with regard to the Smalltalk-80 implementation used on the machine. Tektronix created a machine called Magnolia that used a Smalltalk environment like the Alto/Star, had a bitmapped display and a desktop GUI. Prototypes of the machine were running in early 1981, and it was quite refined by '82. The machine never became a product, though it did pave the way for a couple of generations of Smalltalk-based workstations introduced by Tektronix beginning in late '84. -Rick
Re: Desktop Metaphor
On Tue, 23 Oct 2018 at 19:12, ben wrote: > > On 10/23/2018 4:33 AM, Liam Proven wrote: > > On Mon, 22 Oct 2018 at 21:19, ben via cctalk wrote: > > > >> Try and find a printed page size PDF > >> reader, or one a tad smaller. Reading a PDF on a KINDLE DOES NOT WORK. > > > > I suggest you look at the Kindle DX. > > > > I bought one. I got it 2nd hand, from the USA, via eBay. > > > > I piced up a used 9.7 inch Onyx Boox off ebay. > I live in CANADA so got the useless AMAZON -- no selecton, massive > shipping charges, and no products sold from CANADA. I do use Amazon, but I live in the Czech Republic. There's no Czech Amazon either (although the company has a big office here.) But I don't buy ebooks, at all, from anyone, so I don't care. I use Calibre to sync stuff to/from my Kindle DX, or just mount it as a filesystem and copy it in manually. https://calibre-ebook.com/ > When I was looking for a new reader, all I could find was the 6" crap > on the web, thus my kindle statement. Until they bring back the DX > I still feel we are stuck with crappy low priced readers and windows 95 > windows. I found a PDF that reliably caused my Kindle DX to reboot the moment I opened it. So I bought a cheap Chinese tablet (a Chuwi Hi9 Air) and now I mostly use that. > Where do you get them? I know of Bitsavers but that is all. Lots of places -- there are many. Scribd is one. Direct downloads, mostly. > PS: WIRTH still has his stuff around for GUI system. > https://people.inf.ethz.ch/wirth/ Yes, that's on there. :-) -- Liam Proven - Profile: https://about.me/liamproven Email: lpro...@cix.co.uk - Google Mail/Hangouts/Plus: lpro...@gmail.com Twitter/Facebook/Flickr: lproven - Skype/LinkedIn: liamproven UK: +44 7939-087884 - ČR (+ WhatsApp/Telegram/Signal): +420 702 829 053
Re: Desktop Metaphor
On Tue, 23 Oct 2018 at 18:59, Paul Berger via cctalk wrote: > > This is my issue with a lot of Linux distros they seem to try to hard to > look and work like mac or like windows while I would rather have them > look and work like the xwindows I knew and loved. One of my biggest > aggravations is cut and paste I would very much rather it worked more > like it used to on X. If you want it old-style, build it old-style. Install the minimal or server version of Debian, Ubuntu, Fedora, whatever you want, then install X.org and your window manager of choice. This is how I have been experimentally assembling GNUstep desktops for years now. My favourite minimalist no "desktop" /per se/ distro is Crunchbang -- you might want to look at BunsenLabs or Crunchbang++. Another comparable option is Tiny Core Linux, but I haven't tried it myself. -- Liam Proven - Profile: https://about.me/liamproven Email: lpro...@cix.co.uk - Google Mail/Hangouts/Plus: lpro...@gmail.com Twitter/Facebook/Flickr: lproven - Skype/LinkedIn: liamproven UK: +44 7939-087884 - ČR (+ WhatsApp/Telegram/Signal): +420 702 829 053
Re: Desktop Metaphor
On 10/23/2018 6:02 AM, Peter Corlett via cctalk wrote: I have a 15" 2880 by 1800 display on my laptop, which has a pretty good PDF reader which will show two pages side-by-side. The resolution is high enough that it's as good as reading off paper, albeit scaled down to about 70% because the screen is physically smaller than A4. I use the old TV format low res 800x600 windows for windows because I can't read TINY STUFF. Plug my laptop into a nice HiDPI monitor -- or indeed any good-enough laptop into one of those cheap 4K monitors which use scummy UHD TV panels -- and PDFs become gloriously large and crisp. Go on, find €300 or so and treat yourself to a new display. I love music so all my money is spent nice flat ELECTROSTATIC speakers and VALVE amps, and NEW VINYL. Modern computers are just to play with on the web and read mail and download DR WHO. Ben.
High res e-readers - was Re: Desktop Metaphor
On 2018-10-23 2:12 p.m., ben via cctalk wrote: > On 10/23/2018 4:33 AM, Liam Proven wrote: >> On Mon, 22 Oct 2018 at 21:19, ben via cctalk >> wrote: >> >>> Try and find a printed page size PDF >>> reader, or one a tad smaller. Reading a PDF on a KINDLE DOES NOT WORK. >> >> I suggest you look at the Kindle DX. >> >> I bought one. I got it 2nd hand, from the USA, via eBay. >> > > I piced up a used 9.7 inch Onyx Boox off ebay. > I live in CANADA so got the useless AMAZON -- no selecton, massive > shipping charges, and no products sold from CANADA. Kobo is sold in Canada. The Aura HD is 265dpi with 6.8" diagonal. Fine for reading PDFs. And the newer model H2O is just as good, I use mine every day. --Toby > >> https://www.amazon.com/Kindle-DX-Wireless-Reader-3G-Global/dp/B002GYWHSQ >> >> https://www.amazon.com/Kindle-Wireless-Reading-Display-Globally/dp/B0015TG12Q >> >> > > When I was looking for a new reader, all I could find was the 6" crap > on the web, thus my kindle statement. Until they bring back the DX > I still feel we are stuck with crappy low priced readers and windows 95 > windows. > >> One of the main reasons I got it is that it renders PDFs well and a >> lot of important computer history books and the like are only readily >> available as PDFs. > > Where do you get them? I know of Bitsavers but that is all. > Ben. > PS: WIRTH still has his stuff around for GUI system. > https://people.inf.ethz.ch/wirth/ >
Re: Desktop Metaphor
On 10/23/2018 4:33 AM, Liam Proven wrote: On Mon, 22 Oct 2018 at 21:19, ben via cctalk wrote: Try and find a printed page size PDF reader, or one a tad smaller. Reading a PDF on a KINDLE DOES NOT WORK. I suggest you look at the Kindle DX. I bought one. I got it 2nd hand, from the USA, via eBay. I piced up a used 9.7 inch Onyx Boox off ebay. I live in CANADA so got the useless AMAZON -- no selecton, massive shipping charges, and no products sold from CANADA. https://www.amazon.com/Kindle-DX-Wireless-Reader-3G-Global/dp/B002GYWHSQ https://www.amazon.com/Kindle-Wireless-Reading-Display-Globally/dp/B0015TG12Q When I was looking for a new reader, all I could find was the 6" crap on the web, thus my kindle statement. Until they bring back the DX I still feel we are stuck with crappy low priced readers and windows 95 windows. One of the main reasons I got it is that it renders PDFs well and a lot of important computer history books and the like are only readily available as PDFs. Where do you get them? I know of Bitsavers but that is all. Ben. PS: WIRTH still has his stuff around for GUI system. https://people.inf.ethz.ch/wirth/
Re: Desktop Metaphor
This is my issue with a lot of Linux distros they seem to try to hard to look and work like mac or like windows while I would rather have them look and work like the xwindows I knew and loved. One of my biggest aggravations is cut and paste I would very much rather it worked more like it used to on X. Paul. On 2018-10-23 1:49 PM, Liam Proven via cctalk wrote: On Tue, 23 Oct 2018 at 17:58, Jon Elson wrote: ARRGhhh! I HATE Unity! I have switched all my Ubuntu systems to gnome-classic, which suits me fine. (You have to hack the theme xml file to make the borders wide enough to grab and stretch.) I lasted about 4 hours with Unity. I am a spatial thinker, I want all my icons and toolbar icons to STAY PUT, I grab them by position, not by searing for the picture (icon) I want to select. I am not trying to impose my choices on anyone. I liked Unity. It was simple, quick, clear and effective. I find GNOME 3 to be frustrating to the level of shouting incoherently at my computer within half an hour. Ditto KDE (any version >1.x). Others like them. Chacun à son goût.
Re: Desktop Metaphor
On Tue, 23 Oct 2018 at 17:58, Jon Elson wrote: > ARRGhhh! I HATE Unity! I have switched all my Ubuntu > systems to gnome-classic, which suits me fine. > (You have to hack the theme xml file to make the borders > wide enough to grab and stretch.) > I lasted about 4 hours with Unity. I am a spatial thinker, > I want all my icons and toolbar icons to STAY PUT, I grab > them by position, not by searing for the picture (icon) I > want to select. I am not trying to impose my choices on anyone. I liked Unity. It was simple, quick, clear and effective. I find GNOME 3 to be frustrating to the level of shouting incoherently at my computer within half an hour. Ditto KDE (any version >1.x). Others like them. Chacun à son goût. -- Liam Proven - Profile: https://about.me/liamproven Email: lpro...@cix.co.uk - Google Mail/Hangouts/Plus: lpro...@gmail.com Twitter/Facebook/Flickr: lproven - Skype/LinkedIn: liamproven UK: +44 7939-087884 - ČR (+ WhatsApp/Telegram/Signal): +420 702 829 053
Re: Desktop Metaphor
On Tue, 23 Oct 2018, Liam Proven via cctalk wrote: How many graphical Unix desktops are sold or distributed in the world today that are not Linux? Excluding Mac OS X as I specifically address that point, I think. I am replying to this email on a FreeBSD 10.3 box and Motif. I don't know what FreeBSD runs out of the box because I immediately delete it and install Motif. FreeBSD may not have the installed base of Linux but it has a its fans. -- Richard Loken VE6BSV: "...underneath those tuques we wear, Athabasca, Alberta Canada : our heads are naked!" ** rllo...@telus.net ** :- Arthur Black
Re: Desktop Metaphor
On 10/23/2018 06:13 AM, Liam Proven via cctalk wrote: My personal favourite in recent years was Ubuntu's Unity, which is a better Mac OS X than Mac OS X (IMHO). ARRGhhh! I HATE Unity! I have switched all my Ubuntu systems to gnome-classic, which suits me fine. (You have to hack the theme xml file to make the borders wide enough to grab and stretch.) I lasted about 4 hours with Unity. I am a spatial thinker, I want all my icons and toolbar icons to STAY PUT, I grab them by position, not by searing for the picture (icon) I want to select. Jon
Re: Desktop Metaphor
On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 7:14 AM Mark Green via cctalk wrote: > I worked on the early Smalltalk systems, mainly variations of Smalltalk > 76. They were there. It was the motivation for my MSc thesis which explored > concurrent message passing for UI implementation including a demo of a > system based on the desktop metaphor. > I've never seen evidence for any Smalltalk having a desktop metaphor (as in the discussion at hand -- icons and folders representing files and/or data, not merely windows, etc.). It's certainly possible that the platform was used for experimentation with such within PARC or elsewhere, but no smalltalk images I've seen contain anything like that. Is your thesis available to read anywhere? I wrote an Alto emulator (https://github.com/livingcomputermuseum/ContrAlto) that you can use to run a variety of Smalltalk versions (-72, -74, -76, and early renditions of -80 are available on Bitsavers) if you wish to revisit this. - Josh
Re: Desktop Metaphor
I worked on the early Smalltalk systems, mainly variations of Smalltalk 76. They were there. It was the motivation for my MSc thesis which explored concurrent message passing for UI implementation including a demo of a system based on the desktop metaphor. Sent from my iPhone > On Oct 23, 2018, at 8:02 AM, Peter Corlett via cctalk > wrote: > >> On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 01:19:37PM -0600, ben via cctalk wrote: >> [...] >> That may be true but DOS/WINDOWS and APPLE II all had TV display output >> formats, now it is WIDE SCREEN ONLY. From what little I have seen about the >> Alto, you had a full sized 8x10? page format. The printed page DOES matter >> for graphic displays. Try and find a printed page size PDF reader, or one a >> tad smaller. Reading a PDF on a KINDLE DOES NOT WORK. I suspect a good PDF >> reader, a not tablet, is needed often for all the online doc's at places like >> bit savers to get the knowledge close to a classic computer. > > The Kindle is cheap crap optimised to sell Amazon eBooks. Any feature that > does > not directly push you to give more money to Amazon is made virtually unusable. > This includes its PDF reader. I gave mine away in disgust. > > I suspect that you also have a cheap crap monitor or laptop which uses a nasty > 1080p TV panel. They have a much lower resolution than the printed page, so of > course it's going to look like crap. A4 is 11.69" tall, and squeezing that > into > 1080 pixels gives you 92DPI - worse than fax. Rotating the screen into > portrait > mode gives more pixels, but now the limit is fitting the 8.27" wide document > into 1080 pixels, or 130DPI. (Obviously, these are DPIs of the source, not the > scaled image on your monitor.) > > I have a 15" 2880 by 1800 display on my laptop, which has a pretty good PDF > reader which will show two pages side-by-side. The resolution is high enough > that it's as good as reading off paper, albeit scaled down to about 70% > because > the screen is physically smaller than A4. > > Plug my laptop into a nice HiDPI monitor -- or indeed any good-enough laptop > into one of those cheap 4K monitors which use scummy UHD TV panels -- and PDFs > become gloriously large and crisp. Go on, find €300 or so and treat yourself > to > a new display. >
Re: Desktop Metaphor
On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 01:19:37PM -0600, ben via cctalk wrote: [...] > That may be true but DOS/WINDOWS and APPLE II all had TV display output > formats, now it is WIDE SCREEN ONLY. From what little I have seen about the > Alto, you had a full sized 8x10? page format. The printed page DOES matter > for graphic displays. Try and find a printed page size PDF reader, or one a > tad smaller. Reading a PDF on a KINDLE DOES NOT WORK. I suspect a good PDF > reader, a not tablet, is needed often for all the online doc's at places like > bit savers to get the knowledge close to a classic computer. The Kindle is cheap crap optimised to sell Amazon eBooks. Any feature that does not directly push you to give more money to Amazon is made virtually unusable. This includes its PDF reader. I gave mine away in disgust. I suspect that you also have a cheap crap monitor or laptop which uses a nasty 1080p TV panel. They have a much lower resolution than the printed page, so of course it's going to look like crap. A4 is 11.69" tall, and squeezing that into 1080 pixels gives you 92DPI - worse than fax. Rotating the screen into portrait mode gives more pixels, but now the limit is fitting the 8.27" wide document into 1080 pixels, or 130DPI. (Obviously, these are DPIs of the source, not the scaled image on your monitor.) I have a 15" 2880 by 1800 display on my laptop, which has a pretty good PDF reader which will show two pages side-by-side. The resolution is high enough that it's as good as reading off paper, albeit scaled down to about 70% because the screen is physically smaller than A4. Plug my laptop into a nice HiDPI monitor -- or indeed any good-enough laptop into one of those cheap 4K monitors which use scummy UHD TV panels -- and PDFs become gloriously large and crisp. Go on, find €300 or so and treat yourself to a new display.
Re: Desktop Metaphor
On Tue, 23 Oct 2018 at 13:11, Geoffrey Oltmans wrote: > > I’ll throw in my two cents to say that I’ve used a fair number of GUIs over > the years both commercially available and FOSS, and I’d say that Windows 95’s > UI blew the doors off of anything I’d used up that point in terms of > usability. Nobody IMO can fairly compare it with the previously available X > based desktops. The Mac was good, the Amiga was good, but there was a lot > more flexibility in how Win95 operated, and that’s probably why (along with > familiarity) that it has been so oft copied up to this point (Mac OS X’s UI > notwithstanding, which is also quite good). I'd go with that, actually, yes. My personal favourite in recent years was Ubuntu's Unity, which is a better Mac OS X than Mac OS X (IMHO). But the fact that I like it and am comfy with it doesn't mean that I don't want to see people trying to do something different... -- Liam Proven - Profile: https://about.me/liamproven Email: lpro...@cix.co.uk - Google Mail/Hangouts/Plus: lpro...@gmail.com Twitter/Facebook/Flickr: lproven - Skype/LinkedIn: liamproven UK: +44 7939-087884 - ČR (+ WhatsApp/Telegram/Signal): +420 702 829 053
RE: Desktop Metaphor
I’ll throw in my two cents to say that I’ve used a fair number of GUIs over the years both commercially available and FOSS, and I’d say that Windows 95’s UI blew the doors off of anything I’d used up that point in terms of usability. Nobody IMO can fairly compare it with the previously available X based desktops. The Mac was good, the Amiga was good, but there was a lot more flexibility in how Win95 operated, and that’s probably why (along with familiarity) that it has been so oft copied up to this point (Mac OS X’s UI notwithstanding, which is also quite good).
Re: Desktop Metaphor
On Mon, 22 Oct 2018 at 22:56, Grant Taylor via cctalk wrote: > > It's perfectly possible to use GUIs without any icons. > > It's possible to use GUIs without a mouse. > > The GUI is not responsible for what people do with them / the mouse. Exactly so. Oberon is a good example of a GUI with no icons. It is text-based -- a TUI -- but graphical. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oberon_(operating_system) -- Liam Proven - Profile: https://about.me/liamproven Email: lpro...@cix.co.uk - Google Mail/Hangouts/Plus: lpro...@gmail.com Twitter/Facebook/Flickr: lproven - Skype/LinkedIn: liamproven UK: +44 7939-087884 - ČR (+ WhatsApp/Telegram/Signal): +420 702 829 053
Re: Desktop Metaphor
On Mon, 22 Oct 2018 at 21:19, ben via cctalk wrote: > Try and find a printed page size PDF > reader, or one a tad smaller. Reading a PDF on a KINDLE DOES NOT WORK. I suggest you look at the Kindle DX. I bought one. I got it 2nd hand, from the USA, via eBay. https://www.amazon.com/Kindle-DX-Wireless-Reader-3G-Global/dp/B002GYWHSQ https://www.amazon.com/Kindle-Wireless-Reading-Display-Globally/dp/B0015TG12Q One of the main reasons I got it is that it renders PDFs well and a lot of important computer history books and the like are only readily available as PDFs. -- Liam Proven - Profile: https://about.me/liamproven Email: lpro...@cix.co.uk - Google Mail/Hangouts/Plus: lpro...@gmail.com Twitter/Facebook/Flickr: lproven - Skype/LinkedIn: liamproven UK: +44 7939-087884 - ČR (+ WhatsApp/Telegram/Signal): +420 702 829 053
Re: Desktop Metaphor
On Tue, 23 Oct 2018 at 03:40, Curious Marc via cctalk wrote: > > As they used to say, Windows95 = Mac 1984. Which is pushing it a bit but has > some truth in it... Maybe Mac 1990. Curiously, the Xerox Alto has quite > advanced GUI and object oriented programming (including the smalltalk > windowing environment), but no desktop metaphor or icons that I have seen. I > believe desktop metaphors appear later in the Alto commercial successor, the > Xerox Star, and in the Apple Lisa, which bears strong Xerox influences. > Xerox’s desktop metaphor pushes the object concept a bit far, while the Lisa > got what would become the modern ubiquitous version of the concept almost > dead on. Did I get this approximately right? I'd say you're pretty much bang-on. > Are there any other GUI desktop metaphors that predates this? Not that I'm aware of. -- Liam Proven - Profile: https://about.me/liamproven Email: lpro...@cix.co.uk - Google Mail/Hangouts/Plus: lpro...@gmail.com Twitter/Facebook/Flickr: lproven - Skype/LinkedIn: liamproven UK: +44 7939-087884 - ČR (+ WhatsApp/Telegram/Signal): +420 702 829 053
Re: Desktop Metaphor
On Mon, 22 Oct 2018 at 18:58, Rick Bensene via cctalk wrote: > > Liam Proven wrote: > > > >On the one hand, the cosmetics. *Every* Unix desktop out there draws > >on Win95. > > I take exception to the "*Every*" in Liam's statement above. I think you are missing my point so far that you're looking in the opposite direction. > Replacing "Unix" with "Linux" would make the statement more correct. How many graphical Unix desktops are sold or distributed in the world today that are not Linux? Excluding Mac OS X as I specifically address that point, I think. I can think of _one_ modern desktop that isn't a Linux one -- the Lumina desktop of TrueOS (i.e. FreeBSD.) Guess what -- it's a Win95 clone. > X-Windows-based desktop metaphor UI's existed within the Unix world long > before Win95 came on the scene. That is _precisely my point_. There are _dozens_ of counter-examples, that is, non-Windows-like desktops from before Win95, and _none_ has any measurable modern impact today. Apart from Mac OS X going its own way, basically every other desktop still in active development or still being distributed today is Win95-like. Exceptions: Budgie, GNOME 3, Elementary OS' Pantheon -- all broadly Mac OS X-like. I would also note that Budgie and Pantheon are both derivatives of GNOME 3, as was the now-effectively-dead Ubuntu Unity. > The whole desktop metaphor UI existed long before Windows 95 in non-Unix > implementations by Xerox PARC (Palo Alto Research Center) with the pioneering > Xerox Alto, introduced in 1973, which implemented Alan Kay's concepts for > the desktop metaphor that were postulated in 1970 using Smalltalk as the core > operating system. That, again, *was the point I was trying to make*. We used to have a ton of prior art and alternative designs, and today, they have all gone, with basically no impact. > Windows 95, and the earlier versions of Microsoft's desktop metaphor UI's, > were patterned after these implementations. Microsoft simply took concepts > that already existed in the world of UI design, and made their own > implementation based on those concepts. Whereas this is at its reductio-ad-absurdam core true, it misses the point. If you strip this down to a comparison of the elements that all desktops have in common, then there's nothing left to compare. Yes, it all came out of Xerox... although of course Xerox learned from Englebart, Sketchpad, etc. But what matters are the _differences_. Apple has created 3 main desktop UIs (setting aside the Newton, iPod, iOS etc.) * Lisa OS * classic MacOS (note, no space) * Mac OS X (note, space), now styled macOS (note capitalisation). Lisa OS went nowhere much, but the Mac is clearly strongly derived from it (although MacOS was a very profoundly different OS.) Lisa OS and MacOS both contained numerous innovations which nobody had done before. From memory -- I welcome correction... * a global menu bar in a fixed location * standardised menu entries, with strict rules for naming them (e.g. File/Edit/View/etc, restriction to single words only) * standardised dialog boxes, with standardised names, in a standardised order (trivial example: http://www.folklore.org/StoryView.py?project=Macintosh=Do_It.txt ) * standarised window decorations in fixed positions * fixed restricted meanings for desktop icons, which were themselves limited in function) * menus shared between apps (e.g. the Apple menu) Apple took the somewhat nebulous ideas of Xerox PARC -- of a system for programmers, with Smalltalk visible and so on -- cut them down to something implementable and standardised and controlled them until they were much easier and simpler. It discarded stuff Jobs and his lieutenants didn't get. No Smalltalk, no interpreter or programming exposed to the user, no built-in networking or network functionality. It cut it down to compiled apps with distinct functionality and a strictly controlled unified UI, running cooperatively in a single shared desktop UI. Compare to the early Alto and its kind: UI was wildly varied, might be textual, might not, and there was no uniformity between apps. But the Lisa with its "templates" and multitasking and so on was too complex and too expensive. So this was cut-down even further to the Mac. Much of what we take for granted in UIs today comes either direct from the Mac, or from systems designed soon after the Mac which were either consciously aping it, or were avoiding it and inventing non-Mac-like ways to do things so as to avoid Apple lawsuits. DR GEM put drive icons on the desktop. Apple sued. DR removed them (from the PC version). Microsoft, fighting shy, had no drive icons. Windows 1/2/3 had an empty desktop unless you first opened and then minimised some windows. Win95 came up with "my computer", an entirely virtual folder, and in there were the drive icons -- so it did not i
Re: Desktop Metaphor
On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 9:11 PM Mark Green via cctalk wrote: > The desk top metaphor goes back to at least Doug Englebarts work in the > 1960s. There were no icons, but the basic metaphor was there. > > You need to be careful when you talk about Smalltalk since there were > several quite different versions of it. The early versions were far more > interesting and experimental than the later ones. Unfortunately most of the > existing documentation is on Smalltalk 80 which was an attempt to take the > language main stream. I do seem to recall that the earlier implementations > had icons and the full desktop metaphor. They may have been dropped as > being to radical for the time. > This is entirely incorrect. Earlier versions of Smalltalk investigated a lot of different ideas, but none of them used a desktop metaphor with (or without) icons. - Josh > >
Re: Desktop Metaphor
The desk top metaphor goes back to at least Doug Englebarts work in the 1960s. There were no icons, but the basic metaphor was there. You need to be careful when you talk about Smalltalk since there were several quite different versions of it. The early versions were far more interesting and experimental than the later ones. Unfortunately most of the existing documentation is on Smalltalk 80 which was an attempt to take the language main stream. I do seem to recall that the earlier implementations had icons and the full desktop metaphor. They may have been dropped as being to radical for the time. Sent from my iPhone > On Oct 22, 2018, at 9:38 PM, Curious Marc via cctalk > wrote: > > As they used to say, Windows95 = Mac 1984. Which is pushing it a bit but has > some truth in it... Maybe Mac 1990. Curiously, the Xerox Alto has quite > advanced GUI and object oriented programming (including the smalltalk > windowing environment), but no desktop metaphor or icons that I have seen. I > believe desktop metaphors appear later in the Alto commercial successor, the > Xerox Star, and in the Apple Lisa, which bears strong Xerox influences. > Xerox’s desktop metaphor pushes the object concept a bit far, while the Lisa > got what would become the modern ubiquitous version of the concept almost > dead on. Did I get this approximately right? Are there any other GUI desktop > metaphors that predates this? > Marc > >>> On Oct 22, 2018, at 2:19 PM, ben via cctalk wrote: >>> >>> On 10/22/2018 10:57 AM, Rick Bensene via cctalk wrote: >>> X-Windows-based desktop metaphor UI's existed within the Unix world long >>> before Win95 came on the scene. >>> The whole desktop metaphor UI existed long before Windows 95 in non-Unix >>> implementations by Xerox PARC (Palo Alto Research Center) with the >>> pioneering Xerox Alto, introduced in 1973, which implemented Alan Kay's >>> concepts for the desktop metaphor that were postulated in 1970 using >>> Smalltalk as the core operating system. >> >> That may be true but DOS/WINDOWS and APPLE II all had TV display output >> formats, now it is WIDE SCREEN ONLY. From what little I have seen about the >> Alto, you had a full sized 8x10? page format. The printed page >> DOES matter for graphic displays. Try and find a printed page size PDF >> reader, or one a tad smaller. Reading a PDF on a KINDLE DOES NOT WORK. >> I suspect a good PDF reader, a not tablet, is needed often for all the >> online doc's at places like bit savers to get the knowledge close to a >> classic computer. >> >> I hate GUI's,because I hate ICON's. I see a little hand popup, is a mouse >> pointer,stop that sign, or play feel the naked photo. >> >> Ben. >>
Re: Desktop Metaphor
As they used to say, Windows95 = Mac 1984. Which is pushing it a bit but has some truth in it... Maybe Mac 1990. Curiously, the Xerox Alto has quite advanced GUI and object oriented programming (including the smalltalk windowing environment), but no desktop metaphor or icons that I have seen. I believe desktop metaphors appear later in the Alto commercial successor, the Xerox Star, and in the Apple Lisa, which bears strong Xerox influences. Xerox’s desktop metaphor pushes the object concept a bit far, while the Lisa got what would become the modern ubiquitous version of the concept almost dead on. Did I get this approximately right? Are there any other GUI desktop metaphors that predates this? Marc > On Oct 22, 2018, at 2:19 PM, ben via cctalk wrote: > >> On 10/22/2018 10:57 AM, Rick Bensene via cctalk wrote: >> X-Windows-based desktop metaphor UI's existed within the Unix world long >> before Win95 came on the scene. >> The whole desktop metaphor UI existed long before Windows 95 in non-Unix >> implementations by Xerox PARC (Palo Alto Research Center) with the >> pioneering Xerox Alto, introduced in 1973, which implemented Alan Kay's >> concepts for the desktop metaphor that were postulated in 1970 using >> Smalltalk as the core operating system. > > That may be true but DOS/WINDOWS and APPLE II all had TV display output > formats, now it is WIDE SCREEN ONLY. From what little I have seen about the > Alto, you had a full sized 8x10? page format. The printed page > DOES matter for graphic displays. Try and find a printed page size PDF > reader, or one a tad smaller. Reading a PDF on a KINDLE DOES NOT WORK. > I suspect a good PDF reader, a not tablet, is needed often for all the > online doc's at places like bit savers to get the knowledge close to a > classic computer. > > I hate GUI's,because I hate ICON's. I see a little hand popup, is a mouse > pointer,stop that sign, or play feel the naked photo. > > Ben. >
Re: Desktop Metaphor
On 10/22/2018 03:13 PM, ben via cctalk wrote: What do you call the TEXT based mouse interface, like found on some dos shells. I tend to use the term "(mouse) cursor" for both text and GUI. GUI I think of is the pure graphics. What is a graphic? Does a traditional text (extend ASCII characters 0 - 255) with ANSI color coding with sufficiently high enough resolution count? Particularly if the resolution is high enough that "characters" can almost double as pixels for a GUI? }:-) Also, MS-DOS Shell (as ships with MS-DOS 6.22) has a GUI mode. -- Grant. . . . unix || die
Re: Desktop Metaphor
On 10/22/2018 2:56 PM, Grant Taylor via cctalk wrote: On 10/22/2018 01:19 PM, ben via cctalk wrote: I hate GUI's,because I hate ICON's. I see a little hand popup, is a mouse pointer,stop that sign, or play feel the naked photo. It's perfectly possible to use GUIs without any icons. It's possible to use GUIs without a mouse. The GUI is not responsible for what people do with them / the mouse. What do you call the TEXT based mouse interface, like found on some dos shells. GUI I think of is the pure graphics. Ben.
Re: Desktop Metaphor
On 10/22/2018 01:19 PM, ben via cctalk wrote: I hate GUI's,because I hate ICON's. I see a little hand popup, is a mouse pointer,stop that sign, or play feel the naked photo. It's perfectly possible to use GUIs without any icons. It's possible to use GUIs without a mouse. The GUI is not responsible for what people do with them / the mouse. -- Grant. . . . unix || die
Re: Desktop Metaphor
On 10/22/2018 10:57 AM, Rick Bensene via cctalk wrote: X-Windows-based desktop metaphor UI's existed within the Unix world long before Win95 came on the scene. The whole desktop metaphor UI existed long before Windows 95 in non-Unix implementations by Xerox PARC (Palo Alto Research Center) with the pioneering Xerox Alto, introduced in 1973, which implemented Alan Kay's concepts for the desktop metaphor that were postulated in 1970 using Smalltalk as the core operating system. That may be true but DOS/WINDOWS and APPLE II all had TV display output formats, now it is WIDE SCREEN ONLY. From what little I have seen about the Alto, you had a full sized 8x10? page format. The printed page DOES matter for graphic displays. Try and find a printed page size PDF reader, or one a tad smaller. Reading a PDF on a KINDLE DOES NOT WORK. I suspect a good PDF reader, a not tablet, is needed often for all the online doc's at places like bit savers to get the knowledge close to a classic computer. I hate GUI's,because I hate ICON's. I see a little hand popup, is a mouse pointer,stop that sign, or play feel the naked photo. Ben.
Desktop Metaphor
Liam Proven wrote: >On the one hand, the cosmetics. *Every* Unix desktop out there draws >on Win95. I take exception to the "*Every*" in Liam's statement above. Replacing "Unix" with "Linux" would make the statement more correct. X-Windows-based desktop metaphor UI's existed within the Unix world long before Win95 came on the scene. The whole desktop metaphor UI existed long before Windows 95 in non-Unix implementations by Xerox PARC (Palo Alto Research Center) with the pioneering Xerox Alto, introduced in 1973, which implemented Alan Kay's concepts for the desktop metaphor that were postulated in 1970 using Smalltalk as the core operating system. Windows 95, and the earlier versions of Microsoft's desktop metaphor UI's, were patterned after these implementations. Microsoft simply took concepts that already existed in the world of UI design, and made their own implementation based on those concepts. -Rick -- Rick Bensene The Old Calculator Museum http://oldcalculatormuseum.com
