|
The
History of the Graphical User Interface
Microsoft,
Apple and Xerox
There is an ongoing myth that Microsoft is
justified in ripping off the Macs User Interface, because
Apple had ripped off the MacUI from Xerox PARC (Palo Alto
Research Center). Many go on to further say that Apple took
the UI from the ALTO or STAR. Of course the people that say
this have never used a Mac and an Alto or a Star, or they
would know how silly these claims are.
I
want to point out that philosophically and morally, theft by
one does NOT justify the theft of another. If Apple did steal
their UI from Xerox (which they did not), that would not
forgive Microsoft of the same crime -- that would only make
Apple guilty of a crime as well. So using this as a
rationalization for Microsofts theft from Apple is void of any
merit.
Apple
and Xerox
Apple did not "rip-off" the Macs
UI from Xerox. Apple had hired some people from Xerox (like
Jef Raskin, Bruce Horn) who believed in concepts of a
Graphical User Interface. These concepts are pretty broad --
like making a computer easier to use by using graphics
(icons), using menus, windows and making a consistent
interface to do things. The work on these concepts predates
Xerox PARC -- in fact it was many of these peoples individual
work on those concepts that got them hired at PARC. So Xerox
(PARC) brought them together to refine them.
Apple's work on GUI's predates Steve Jobs
visit to Palo Alto Research Center. Apple had already had the
same broad goals of offering an easier to use computer, and
possibly using some of the same concept (like menus, icons,
and graphics).
Remember
the following: Icons were not new, we had been using them for
years for international street signs and so on -- they were
only new on computers. Menus were not new, text based menus
were being used and had been for a while. Graphics weren't
new, though how much they were relied upon was new. The
concepts of User Interface (Human Factors) was not new, it was
just a little newer in applying it to computers.
Jef Raskin had worked at Xerox, and he was
tooting the "easier to use" trumpet, with his vision
of what that meant. He brought some of those ideas from Xerox,
but he had brought some of those ideas TO Xerox as well.
Later, he convinced Jobs to visit Xerox PARC, and Jobs became
an immediate convert (for ease of use).
What
Jobs saw at Xerox was a prototype Smalltalk development
system. He did not see either a working ALTO or Star (which
was developed much later).
Apple
paid
Jobs was so hot on the concepts of UI, and
the living Demos he say, that he, later, negotiated a deal
with Xerox. He gave Xerox a large sum of stock in Apple (worth
Millions) if he could come back, and bring some programmers --
to inspire them more on the concepts of GUI. This was
like a one-day tour. This was agreed to by Xerox, and so by no
stretch of the imagination could this be called
"ripping-off".
PARC was a research center -- meant to
inspire development. But they did not really develop products
(in the commercial sense), they developed ideas. Saying that
Apple learning some of the base concepts and then applying
them was "ripping-off" is like saying that Air-Bags
are ripping off Newton -- because Air Bags work because they
adhere to some of the laws of physics first expressed by Sir
Isaac. A silly silly argument. Knowledge builds on knowledge.
Xerox didn't see Apple as competition, that is why they let
them in -- but they charged Apple, since Xerox believed that
their research had value.
Apple was creating a product, and so they
hired some of the same researchers from Xerox, to be brought
to Apple to work on the Mac and Lisa projects. Those
researches state quite clearly that the goals and
implementation were quite different between Xerox and Apple.
The following is an exchange between two of those researchers,
and should give you an idea of how much the Mac contributed to
the concepts of UI -
- Letter
from Bruce Horn on origins of Macs UI
- Response
from Jef Raskin (another Mac founder)
- Response
from Bruce to Raskins Letter
The letters do seem to agree that the Macs
UI was created at Apple, by Apple and for Apple. And that
little if any Xerox work was taken, and the Mac was in a
completely different universe. Some broad concepts were in
common, but that is about it. Apple furthered those concepts,
developed their own, and had totally different
implementations.
The differences in UI between the Xerox UI
and Apples' Mac were startlingly different. Years ago I saw a
demo of a Alto. From my memory (which may not be flawless), it
had a 3 button mouse (which you operated with your right
hand), and a chording keyboard (for the left hand). There were
overlapping windows, but there was no direct manipulation of
those windows. To move the window you selected an option, from
the one Menu that you had for each window, and you entered the
new size or location of the window into a dialog (using
numerical coordinates).There were icons, but icons were not
associated with files -- they were more actions (buttons).
They were using icons as verbs (do this, or do that) -- Apple
made them into nouns, objects (that each represented data)
that you manipulated. There wasn't that much direct
manipulation, and most of the usage of the multiple windows
was so that you could have multiple character terminals (like
DOS) open at the same time. Contrast this with a Mac and you
see that Apple went way way beyond what they saw.
Xerox
extended their developments over time as well, but this is not
ripping off. After Apple was far along into the Lisa and Mac
project, Xerox had the Star. The Star used many more Mac-like
concepts. But many were parallel developed, and some was cross
over -- but both machines were developed at the same time but
for different goals. I also beleive the Mac is easier to use
and has the better interface.
Contrasts
Jobs kept beating on the Mac people that
"Real Artists Ship!" - and that they were making a
product. That is not anything like the research atmosphere at
Xerox.
The Mac was 128k based personal computer,
based on a Motorola 68000 processor - the MacOS was designed
around Pascal with lots of assembly language for size/speed.
The Xerox machines were anything but
personal computers -- they did not use microprocessors (closer
to mini-computers), they had no real resource constraints as
the Mac did, they ran slower (in real use), were far less
elegant, were very immature (yet had some brilliant concepts)
and were not really products -- they were research tools. The
Xerox Machines were built around SmallTalk (a very resource
wasteful language, for the time, but dynamic and powerful).
The two machine use completely different
code and architectures -- which requires completely different
software designs. The Mac and the Alto are about as related as
a Motorcycle and a Semi-truck -- sure they both have wheels,
both are transportation, and both run on roads -- after that
it gets pretty divergent.
Note:
There is not a single line of code that Apple got from Xerox,
nor could have since the languages and designs of the system
were so radically different.
Apple
and Microsoft
Now what happened with Microsoft?
Well it starts out that Microsoft was one of the first Application
Developers for the Mac. Apple (Jobs) knew that the Mac needed
Software to be commercially viable, and Jobs learned that
Microsoft was trying to break in to the Application market (Few
remember that MS made languages. Then later stole OS's (DOS).
And it wasn't until the Mac that they started making
Applications. The Mac was Microsoft's chance to break into the
lucrative Application markets. (Microsoft had made a few
feeble attempts before the Mac, but it was the Mac that made
them successful in the application area. They knew that a new
computer meant new opportunities.
Jobs showed Microsoft the early Mac
prototypes. Gates liked the ideas and agreed to write Mac
applications).
Gates later threatened to pull their apps
at the last minute before release unless Jobs agreed to:
A)
Apple had to license some of the MacUI for MS-Applications on
the PC. This Application suite later grew into Windows 1.0 and
Office. Remember, Windows started off as an Application Suite,
not an OS-Shell (
Because
Apple had licensed some concepts to Microsoft (under
coercion), it weakened their case later against MS when MS
started more blatantly ripping off the Mac. Contrary to
popular myth that Apple lost their lawsuit against MS because
it wasn't a rip-off, the real reason was that they had been to
vague in their licensing of some technologies, and the benefit
of the doubt was given MS).
B)
Apple had to drop their MacBasic project which was completed
and better than MS Basic. MacBasic had many concepts that MS
ripped off to create VisualBasic. What few ideas for VB that
MS didn't rip off from MacBasic they got from HyperCard --
which Bill Atkinson wrote because the Mac didn't have a good
simple programming environment, because MS had dropped their
basic for the Mac and had forced MacBasic to canceled as well.
Later MS decided that the GUI was just too
cool not to use. So they started on an Application Suite that
would use the Macs concepts of Windows, a Mouse, and direct
manipulation to achieve its ends. This became Windows 1.0, and
evolved into the Windows we know and hate today. The lead
programmer for the Windows project was the same guy who had
been a lead programmer for writing the Mac Application
projects.
This sequence of events (Microsoft
"borrowing" the Mac interface) is not the same as
taking rough concepts and adding to them to create your own
system -- this is much more intimate than that. Microsoft took
their best Mac Programmer, and had him making almost
every design decision for early windows. He was told, by Bill
Gates, to make a PC look and work, "JUST like a
Mac" -- this is a direct quote from Gates! Contrast that
sequence of events, to Apple and Xerox sequence of events, and
you get an idea for the difference in philosophy and
implementation. Microsoft stole, Apple expanded.
This similarity was (of Windows to MacOS)
is not just in design, there are whole toolboxes/API that are
almost identical (in interface). Microsoft stole data
structures and many routines, and the names and concepts for
many things are the same as well. If it wasn't for the fact
that they had to hack their stuff on top of DOS, they likely
would have just stolen all the same code (and they did get
sued for that later as well). If you look at many of the older
Windows routines you see names and structures that are
identical to the Mac. But MS is smart enough to avoid (or win)
lawsuits -- they changed one name out of 10, or re-ordered a
few things, all so they could say it wasn't identical. MS also
had to make some design changes to get it to run on a PC. But
as far as real design work for Windows, there was none -- the
Mac was a living design document.
At first, MS only ripped off the design and
implementation, but stayed away from Apple's look and feel.
They knew that Apple would only tollerate so much theft. Later
MS crossed this line as well, and Apple sued. It was when they
started to steal the desktop metaphor (folders, trashcan,
etc.) that Apple had enough. No matter what the legal
decisions are, ethically Microsoft ripped off the Mac.
Later
(post 1995) Microsoft has started to put some money into
R&D, and they may try to innovate. Up to this
point, they did not innovate -- they may rework others ideas,
or add features to, but that's not "true"
innovation.
Conclusions
Apple did not rip-off the Alto (Xerox-Parc)
-- how could they? Apple was a product oriented company that
produced a computer on their own. That computer had a few
similarities in concept (user interface) with stuff Xerox was
doing, but almost NOTHING in common design or
implementation. Apple's metaphors went way way beyond what
Xerox was doing (though there are other areas where Xerox was
beyond Apple). They were trying to achieve different goals --
and from different points of view. Apple was creating the
ultimate personal computer. Xerox was doing research tools,
and later tried to make a big client-server type document
distribution systems. These are about as similar as a
motorcyle and a commuter Bus.
Microsoft on the other hand did rip-off
Apple. The concept of making a computer easy to use is way to
broad to protect, and Apple didn't complain about that.
Windows, icons and menus are not ripping Apple off either --
these are broad concepts. Microsoft got sued because they
stole design, implementation and finally metaphors (look and
feel). They stole the way you manipulate things on the
computer -- as well as almost everything underneath. I
sometimes swear that if Microsoft had an original thought the
company would immediately implode in suprise. Almost
Everything good in Windows can be traced directly to the Mac
(which the Mac had years before) -- and almost everything bad
in Windows can be traced directly to where MS tried to do
things different than the Mac and proved they don't know what
they hell they are doing.
Novell
- A Leader in Networking
Novell helped invent the corporate
network in the early 1980s, and continues to drive technology
for the Net today. Network software began with the sharing of
files and printers within local area networks (LANs) and
evolved into the management of wide area networks that enabled
enterprise class computing. Today, Novell is committed to
providing the infrastructure for a world in which all types of
networks - intranets, extranets, and the Internet, corporate
and public, wired to wireless - work together as one Net to
simplify the complexities of eBusiness and provide the power
and flexibility organizations need to succeed in the Net
economy.
A
History of Technology Leadership
Novell Data Systems began life in 1979
as a computer manufacturer and maker of disk operating
systems. In January 1983, Raymond J. Noorda and Safeguard
Scientific, a venture capital firm, reincorporated NDSI as
Novell, Inc. to design and market software and hardware used
for data networks. Noorda, an experienced engineer and
marketer became president, chief executive officer, and
ultimately chairman of the board of the new company.
Under
Noorda, Novell helped found the corporate network market with
the introduction of the LAN. In 1983, Novell introduced
NetWare, the first LAN software based on file-server
technology. Novell developed a PC networking system that
designated one machine to manage the network and control
access to shared devices, such as disk drives and printers.
This marked and important early step in the network revolution
that has culminated today in the one Net economy.
Through
the 1980s, corporate requirements for networks grew
significantly, with LANs being increasingly replaced by Wide
Area Networks (WANs), which unified large corporate
environments. By the early 1990s, Novell's NetWare operating
system, updated to add key features for distributed
enterprises, led this market with nearly a 70 percent share
In
1996, recognizing that the Internet was beginning to
revolutionize the traditional network market, Interim CEO John
Young initiated a program to make the company's products
Internet ready.
Dr.
Eric Schmidt, formerly Sun Microsystems' chief technology
officer, took over the reins at Novell in March 1997. Schmidt
accelerated Novell's efforts to leverage its core networking
strengths in the Internet arena. He quickly announced a
product roadmap to base all of Novell's products on IP, the
Internet communications protocol. The following year both
NetWare 5, the server operating system, and Novell Directory
Service (NDS), which had become the basis for new Net services
software products from Novell, began shipping with native IP
support.
With
the increased heterogeneity in corporate networks and the need
for interoperability across the Internet, Novell began in 1998
to promote NDS as a means to tie diverse platforms together.
The company also began shipping the first of its new Net
services software products that use information stored in the
directory to simplify the management of networks and better
secure access based on the identities of users. In late 1999,
Novell released NDS eDirectory, a true cross-platform
directory service that epitomized Novell's commitment to
interoperability and open standards, key Internet
requirements.
In
2000, Novell announced expanding the availability of Net
services software to include access, as needed, over the Net.
Novell is leading the industry in creating a new model for
software delivery
Making
the one Net Vision a Reality
The one Net world envisioned by Novell
- where intranets, extranets, and the Internet, corporate and
public, wired to wireless work together - presents challenges
and opportunities for business. In a one Net, eBusiness world,
individuals must be able to access their own information, the
way they want it, any time, anywhere, from any device.
Businesses must manage their relationships with customers,
partners, and even their own employees, electronically, using
networking technology to determine who has access to what,
when, and how. With more than 20 years of experience, Novell
remains at the forefront of this latest networking revolution,
providing innovative Net services software that help customers
realize the enormous potential of a one Net world.
|
Back |
 |
|
