Board index » delphi » Re: SD Times article

Re: SD Times article


2005-03-13 11:08:48 PM
delphi198
Lauchlan M writes:
Quote

Also from that link,

"May 1995---Borland's Delphi Debuts

The perennial preview for the features you will find in the next VB
release. "

Perhaps that also says something about MS's 'innovation' with VB? Or
perhaps not.
VB 3 was released before Delphi 1. VB(Visual Basic) 3 was also the version of VB(Visual Basic) that
really took off and became widely used in industry.
--
Wayne Niddery - Logic Fundamentals, Inc. (www.logicfundamentals.com)
RADBooks: www.logicfundamentals.com/RADBooks.html
"A man is likely to mind his own business when it is worth minding,
when it is not, he takes his mind off his own meaningless affairs by
minding other people's business." - Eric Hoffer
 
 

Re: SD Times article

Lauchlan M writes:
Quote

In fact, my recollection was that MS was highly resistant at the time
to user friendly GUI's. For some years they defended the restriction
of file names to 8 characters or something as a *good* thing for some
obscure technical reason (boiling down to the fact that it had been
done that way in the past).
What do file name lengths have to do with GUI?
Quote
Ultimately they only did it to copy and thereby outcompete/outmarket
the Apple Mac.
You really need to check your dates on these things. MS started developing
Windows in '81 and it was announced in '83. The first Mac came out in '84.
--
Wayne Niddery - Logic Fundamentals, Inc. (www.logicfundamentals.com)
RADBooks: www.logicfundamentals.com/RADBooks.html
"True peace is not the absence of tension, but the presence of
justice." - Martin Luther King, Jr.
 

Re: SD Times article

Quote
>"May 1995---Borland's Delphi Debuts
>
>The perennial preview for the features you will find in the next VB
>release. "
>
>Perhaps that also says something about MS's 'innovation' with VB? Or
>perhaps not.

VB 3 was released before Delphi 1.
Yep, I think the timeline in the link emphasised that.
Quote
VB 3 was also the version of VB(Visual Basic) that
really took off and became widely used in industry.
I'll take your word for it.
Lauchlan M
 

Re: SD Times article

Quote
>I suppose you mean Windows 95, because Windows for Workgroups sure
>wasn't user friendly.

I guess that kind of depends on where you're coming from. It was Windows 3
that finally took off big time in the market. Why do you think that is?
because it was a better GUI than MS-DOS, ie it had a GUI.
Lauchlan M
 

Re: SD Times article

Quote
>In fact, my recollection was that MS was highly resistant at the time
>to user friendly GUI's. For some years they defended the restriction
>of file names to 8 characters or something as a *good* thing for some
>obscure technical reason (boiling down to the fact that it had been
>done that way in the past).

What do file name lengths have to do with GUI?

>Ultimately they only did it to copy and thereby outcompete/outmarket
>the Apple Mac.

You really need to check your dates on these things. MS started developing
Windows in '81 and it was announced in '83.
There's a nice timeline at www.levenez.com/windows/history.html
I was never really aware of Windows 1 or 2. Do you have a link to
screenshots of the GUI?
Quote
The first Mac came out in '84.
I think that is a little disingenuous. The Lisa came out in January 1983, and
had most of the GUI features of the Mac, IIRC.
applemuseum.bott.org/sections/history.html
But how many people used Windows 1 or 2? (genuine question, I just don't
know. Was there a big takeup?)
Lauchlan M
 

Re: SD Times article

Quote
>In fact, my recollection was that MS was highly resistant at the time
>to user friendly GUI's. For some years they defended the restriction
>of file names to 8 characters or something as a *good* thing for some
>obscure technical reason (boiling down to the fact that it had been
>done that way in the past).

What do file name lengths have to do with GUI?
It has a lot to do with MS's attitude at the time towards user friendliness,
as an example.
Lauchlan M
 

Re: SD Times article

Wayne Niddery [TeamB] writes:
Quote

>Ultimately they only did it to copy and thereby outcompete/outmarket
>the Apple Mac.

You really need to check your dates on these things. MS started developing
Windows in '81 and it was announced in '83. The first Mac came out in '84.
No, you need to get your facts straight. Here's some of the timeline :
- 1979 : Lisa and Mac projects started.
- 1981 : Windows started (according to you, probably right)
- 1983 : Lisa introduced.
- 1984 : Mac introduced.
- 1985 : Windows 1.0 introduced.
- 1987 : Windows 2.0 introduced.
- 1990 : Windows 3.0 introduced.
And have you even seen Windows 1.0 and 2.0? They were jokes that even MS
people laugh these days. Screenshot gives you some sample :
www.aci.com.pl/mwichary/guidebook/interfaces/windows/win10/win101
E.g. the windows couldn't overlap each other. Hello? It could very well
be argued that MS got to the level of first Mac with Windows 95. Over
*10 years* later!!!
You probably know your Windows, but please find out the facts before
writing about the other environments and give credit to those who earn it.
--
David S.
Delphi programming : www.borland.com/delphi/
 

Re: SD Times article

Wayne Niddery [TeamB] writes:
Quote
- Windows itself
- Structured Storage (OLE)
- RTF
- COM/DCOM
- Clippy <g>
- significant improvements in networking
- Hardware advances for keyboards and mice
- Huge amounts of research into usability
- .Net
You forgot Bob <g>
--
Carl
 

Re: SD Times article

"David Smith" <XXXX@XXXXX.COM>writes
Quote
Wayne Niddery [TeamB] writes:
>
>>Ultimately they only did it to copy and thereby outcompete/outmarket
>>the Apple Mac.
>
>You really need to check your dates on these things. MS started
>developing Windows in '81 and it was announced in '83. The first Mac came
>out in '84.

No, you need to get your facts straight. Here's some of the timeline :

- 1979 : Lisa and Mac projects started.
- 1981 : Windows started (according to you, probably right)
- 1983 : Lisa introduced.
- 1984 : Mac introduced.
- 1985 : Windows 1.0 introduced.
- 1987 : Windows 2.0 introduced.
- 1990 : Windows 3.0 introduced.

And have you even seen Windows 1.0 and 2.0? They were jokes that even MS
people laugh these days. Screenshot gives you some sample :
Here are links to a more complete history of the GUI:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_GUI
applemuseum.bott.org/sections/gui.html
Alan Kay gave me a demo of Smalltalk on the Alto at Xerox PARC in 1973. It
had bitmapped graphics, icons, pop up menus, overlapping windows, a three
button mouse, Ethernet networking, laser printer etc. He showed me paint
programs, text editors, video games, and real time music synthesis. He sat
down at a full size organ keyboard and, as he played, full orchestral music
came out of a pair of Bose 901's and the detailed score scrolled by on the
monitor in real time. This was all from a 16 bit, 2.74Mhz computer.
And of course, Smalltalk was/is a full blown object oriented programming
language with a rich class library.
Steve Jobs got a similar demo six years later (1979) which was the starting
point for the Apple Lisa and Macintosh.
Two years later (1981), Bill Gates bought DOS from Seattle Computer
Products: members.fortunecity.com/pcmuseum/dos.htm
 

Re: SD Times article

Michael Anonymous writes:
Quote
Wayne Niddery [TeamB] writes:
<snip>

>To say that MS has not made many innovations over the years, just
>because they did not *originate* or *invent* many of their products,
>is unfairly discounting their work.
>

Please list at least 3 "innovations" that MS has done in the market place.
I'm afraid I can not think of any.

Today, I can think more clearly - thank goodness.
I can list 3 recent product innovations by Microsoft related to ".NET":
1) A new way to market
2) A new way to sell more products and services.
3) A new way to force developers to rewrite their code
thereby making their legacy code less effective and efficient.
 

Re: SD Times article

Quote
Just off the top of my head, there are probably lots of more important
examples.

- Windows itself
- Structured Storage (OLE)
- RTF
- COM/DCOM
- Clippy <g>
- significant improvements in networking
- Hardware advances for keyboards and mice
- *Huge* amounts of research into usability
- .Net
I think those are all rather debatable.
Windows, we have discussed and I don't buy that one at all. Nice try.
Classing "clippy" as an 'innovation' certainly begs the question.
OLE, RTF and COM/DCOM - sure, they're all MS technologies. But whether they
were MS ideas or boil down to reflections or copies of things other people
were trying to do in the industry first is another question. I suppose I'll
provisionally accept them for now but I have substantial doubts that if one
looked into it in detail one would find the actual ideas were innovated by
MS. That is, were there competing technologies to rtf and COM/DCOM that got
to the market first, and MS's solution is simply now the better known one?
Then there are the various 'innovations' you 'listed' where you didn't
actually list any specific innovations:
* *What* 'advances in hardware for keyboards and mice' and 'improvements in
networking' are you classing as specifically MS innovations?
* "*Huge* amounts of research into usability" - I suppose you mean to imply
that this research has carried across into one or more actual tangible
products or product features, if so, what?
* Similarly for .net - apart from the marketing branding of it, *what* do
you consider to be innovative about it? Is there a particular feature or
aspect that is innovative?
Without listing specific MS innovations, you are not nominating MS
innovations, just dressing up the vague proposition 'yeah MS innovated
stuff' in some rhetorical dressing, _hinting_ that MS _may_ (or equally, may
not) have innovated without _showing_ us what it is. It certainly doesn't
help me (and I doubt anyone) understand what great innovators MS were/are.
Lauchlan M
 

Re: SD Times article

Quote
OLE, RTF and COM/DCOM - sure, they're all MS technologies. But whether
they
were MS ideas or boil down to reflections or copies of things other people
were trying to do in the industry first is another question. I suppose
I'll
provisionally accept them for now but I have substantial doubts that if
one
looked into it in detail one would find the actual ideas were innovated by
MS. That is, were there competing technologies to rtf and COM/DCOM that
got
to the market first, and MS's solution is simply now the better known one?
ok, I am crossing off the .rtf format from my provisional acceptance list -
www.melbpc.org.au/pcupdate/2310/2310article12.htm
" Alan Freedman's The Computer Desktop Encyclopedia says RTF is "A Microsoft
standard for encoding formatted text and graphics. It was adapted from IBM's
DCA format ....". Document Content Architecture (DCA) was developed by IBM
as an early word processor format for text documents."
Lauchlan M
 

Re: SD Times article

Quote
- Windows itself
There were at least 4 WIMP OSes widely available before Windows 3
(nobody actually used Windows 1 <g>).
Quote
- COM/DCOM
And how much better the world would have been without this :-) I also
remember IBM having a more sophisticated version that seemed much more
elegant (SOM??)
Quote
- significant improvements in networking
When are they going to release them? :-)
Quote
- *Huge* amounts of research into usability
Which is why Word (to take but one example) is such a joy to use, I
imagine :-)
Quote
- .Net
I'm glad they did this, but "innovation" is too strong a word for it, IMO
Quote
Many of the above built on top of research and advances originated by
others. So what?
It means the others did the innovating. Not necessarily a bad thing if
MS uses those innovations and brings them to the masses, but to then
call MS "innovative" is misleading
Cheers,
Jim Cooper
__________________________________________
Jim Cooper XXXX@XXXXX.COM
Tabdee Ltd www.tabdee.ltd.uk
TurboSync - Connecting Delphi to your Palm
__________________________________________
 

Re: SD Times article

Quote
The fact that
MS did not invent the idea of a GUI does not take away from the fact that
they were able to produce one that was commerically viable.
They were not even the first to do that. Macs, X-Windows, Amigas, Ataris
were all WIMP-based GUIs that were commercially viable well before MS
got one to sell. They owe a debt to the Mac in particular for making the
idea popular.
Cheers,
Jim Cooper
__________________________________________
Jim Cooper XXXX@XXXXX.COM
Tabdee Ltd www.tabdee.ltd.uk
TurboSync - Connecting Delphi to your Palm
__________________________________________
 

Re: SD Times article

Quote
Again you are insisting that only *origination* is innovation. The fact
that
MS did not invent the idea of a GUI does not take away from the fact that
they were able to produce one that was commerically viable.
Yes, but if it was not the first or the best (I give the Mac credit on both
counts over Windows) it sort of steals the thunder from MS on their
'innovation'.
No one is arguing whether or not they were commercially successful. The
issue is whether they were innovators.
Lauchlan M