Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Onizuka said:
Is this REALLY coming from an intelligent computer user?

I'm so sorry, it was Windows 2.0 that looked just like the Mac OS. Not 95. Which is why I asked what version.

don't get too excited. first you didn't ask a question. you stated windows 95. but you could always compare screenshots for windows 2.0 and system 5 from 1987. they don't look alike. besides, they both copied xerox per your linked article.

Second, Windows SUCKS as it is now. The entire OS is based around Explorer. Which means that everything has the same communication points between apps (be it Explorer, Word, Outlook, etc.) which gives the OS more to exploit from a trojan/virus/spyware writer. I don't care if it's a moumental task. Re-write the damn thing so it's an OS and not a browser with a bunch of registries and wrappers built on top of it. edit: And what I mean about running apps not inside of a WINDOW, look at Media Player, which has a skin, and a window around it that dissappears. get rid of the window.

could you elaborate on 'same communication points between apps'? i'm not too familiar with that. from what i understand, each application presents its own exploit issues and is mostly user dependent. a virus writer can take advantage of default behavior of, for example, internet explorer or outlook to open a word document that contains a macro virus using word. however, the same could be done with firefox or thunderbird.

Third, not all apps that run on an OS depend on THAT OS. Do you not know the purpose of Java? Or perhaps Ruby?

in a sense, yes and no. java requires a virtual machine. you could say the same for scripts. a bash script can't just run by itself. it requires bash, which is dependant on the host os.
 
What are you talking about? Have you even used a Windows PC lately?

Onizuka said:
Second, Windows SUCKS as it is now. The entire OS is based around Explorer. Which means that everything has the same communication points between apps (be it Explorer, Word, Outlook, etc.) which gives the OS more to exploit from a trojan/virus/spyware writer.

You are confused. Windows 98/ME were entirely based around Windows Explorer. 2000/XP are not entirely. Explorer is where you save things, so when you click My Computer it opens Windows Explorer on the My Computer folder. You save things to the folder.

Like Mac OS X, for example, uses the Finder, think of the Finder as Windows Explorer.

I don't care if it's a moumental task. Re-write the damn thing so it's an OS and not a browser with a bunch of registries and wrappers built on top of it. edit: And what I mean about running apps not inside of a WINDOW, look at Media Player, which has a skin, and a window around it that dissappears. get rid of the window.

You are again confused. This is the way Windows works:

The Registry houses EVERYTHING, its like the DNA of the OS. All activation info, serial numbers, program settings, everything is in the registry. The registry is not built on top of the OS. And Windows explorer doesn't come in until WAY later, so how could it be built on top of it?



And why do you keep saying BROWSER, BROWSER, BROWSER.

Windows Explorer and Internet Explorer share most qualities but are different applications. Think of iTunes/QuickTime associations. QuickTime controls everything in iTunes when it comes to music and audio, but they are separate apps. They do mostly the same things, but they are still totally different.

Same with Windows Explorer and Internet Explorer. Try to go online to a website with Windows Explorer. You can, but you don't have any options like clear cookies or homepage or anything.
 
jhu said:
besides, they both copied xerox per your linked article.

Can we please put this myth out of its misery once and for all? No, neither Apple nor Microsoft "copied" Xerox. Here is what the Xerox Alto (the computer everybody supposedly copied), actually looked like:

http://arstechnica.com/articles/paedia/gui.ars/3

Does this look like anything Apple ever produced? Even remotely?

And in fact, Apple licensed part of the Mac GUI to Microsoft, which is why Windows 2 and the Mac GUI had some passing resemblance. Apple sued Microsoft after those elements also appeared in Windows 3. Microsoft argued that their license covered more than Windows 2. The judged agreed with Microsoft and the case was dismissed.
 
dotdotdot said:
You are confused. Windows 98/ME were entirely based around Windows Explorer. 2000/XP are not entirely.
Isn't Microsoft trying to integrate IE7 into Windows more?

You are again confused. This is the way Windows works:

The Registry houses EVERYTHING, its like the DNA of the OS. All activation info, serial numbers, program settings, everything is in the registry.

... Try to go online to a website with Windows Explorer. You can, but you don't have any options like clear cookies or homepage or anything.
This is why I am so averse to Microsoft. Their attempt to integrate everything into everything else stinks of vendor lock-in. If you don't like Finder in Mac OS X, for example, you can always use an alternative, such as Path Finder, without any hiccups. If you don't like Safari, send it to the Recycle Bin and use Firefox/Opera/Camino. Try getting rid of Internet Explorer like that.

And tying everything in together causes a LOT of issues. There is NO way a webpage should be able to wreak havoc with your computer, without even a user confirmation dialog. But it happens with Windows XP.

And yes, I know about WebKit being built-in. But it's not like every app is tied into it the way Microsoft tangles everything together.

And if anyone says that Apple is killing off 3rd party development by writing its own apps, I'm going to tell them to write an app for OS X and do something, instead of just complaining about the lack of third-party developers.
 
jhu said:
don't get too excited. first you didn't ask a question. you stated windows 95.
Actually, I did ask a question. There's a question mark after "Windows 95" ;)



could you elaborate on 'same communication points between apps'? i'm not too familiar with that. from what i understand, each application presents its own exploit issues and is mostly user dependent. a virus writer can take advantage of default behavior of, for example, internet explorer or outlook to open a word document that contains a macro virus using word. however, the same could be done with firefox or thunderbird.[

Sure, Explorer, outlook, and half the OS is built on the same code that allows a piece of malware to execute from the desktop, then open ports on the machine, then take any contacts out of outlook and then propagate itself to those people, at the same time allowing someone total access of the machine. This is why Apps should be Apps and have no tie to the operating system that allows complete control. The lamest example is the known JPEG exploit. How in the hell a JPEG should be able to infest your machine with malicious software is beyond me. Windows is coded irresponsibly.

in a sense, yes and no. java requires a virtual machine. you could say the same for scripts. a bash script can't just run by itself. it requires bash, which is dependant on the host os.

Let's not split hairs here. Bash isn't cross platform like Java and other technologies. All I'm saying is that apps don't necessarily need to be coded for any one OS, but for a certain language that supports multi-platform.

I deal with both Windows (XP) and OS X, every single day (because I work on Windows, and I work with OS X at home). I've used Windows far longer than I've been a Mac user. And I absolutely hate it. It's unfortunate my company's software was built using the .net protocols. I'd love to take my mini to work and be completely free of any problems.
 
Nermal said:
With the exception of "Zerox", which doesn't really count since it's a company name rather than an English word, his spelling is perfect :confused:

Spelling Xerox as Zerox is not only a misspelling of the company name, but also of the Greek root word of xeros (meaning "dry" to anyone interested).

In response to the Xerox/Apple GUI bit: if I remember right, Xerox and Apple worked on the GUI together - evolving what Xerox had already developed, into the file/folder metaphor we use today.
 
jhu said:
this is coming from a demi-god poster?

To clarify - Demi-God relates to the fact that a person has contributed money to help fund the site, rather than some measure of experience or knowledge.

Confused me at first too. :)
 
Onizuka said:
Sure, Explorer, outlook, and half the OS is built on the same code that allows a piece of malware to execute from the desktop, then open ports on the machine, then take any contacts out of outlook and then propagate itself to those people, at the same time allowing someone total access of the machine. This is why Apps should be Apps and have no tie to the operating system that allows complete control. The lamest example is the known JPEG exploit. How in the hell a JPEG should be able to infest your machine with malicious software is beyond me. Windows is coded irresponsibly.

any virus that gets root access will practically be able to do anything. the same thing could happen on a linux machine with a root exploit. sure a jpeg shouldn't be able to cause a machine to malicious code, but that's just bad software engineering. on the unix-side, there's an mp3 player called mpg123 that had a vulnerability
where malformed mp3s could be used to run arbitrary code

Let's not split hairs here. Bash isn't cross platform like Java and other technologies. All I'm saying is that apps don't necessarily need to be coded for any one OS, but for a certain language that supports multi-platform.

anything that doesn't run directly on the hardware is cross platform. bash runs on practically any piece of hardware.
 
Blackheart said:
In response to the Xerox/Apple GUI bit: if I remember right, Xerox and Apple worked on the GUI together - evolving what Xerox had already developed, into the file/folder metaphor we use today.

No, but some of the Xerox PARC scientists ended up working for Apple. Some of them also ended up at Microsoft.

Way too much emphasis is placed on Steve Jobs' visit to PARC. According to Jef Raskin, he arranged the visit so that Jobs would have a better understanding of the direction Raskin and his small team at Apple was already going with the then-new Mac project. It worked. The visit turned Jobs into a big supporter of the Mac project, so much so, that he eventually took it over.

Give Raskin, Hertzfeld and all of those of those other clever people on the original Mac team some credit. They did original work, not just a pale copy of something they borrowed from Xerox. FWIW, Xerox never even came close to getting it right. Apple did.

As for Microsoft, if anybody can tell me what they've contributed to state of the art, please let me know.
 
jhu said:
any virus that gets root access will practically be able to do anything. the same thing could happen on a linux machine with a root exploit. sure a jpeg shouldn't be able to cause a machine to malicious code, but that's just bad software engineering. on the unix-side, there's an mp3 player called mpg123 that had a vulnerability
The difference is that that vuln only affects you if you use MPG123. These picture exploits affect you no matter what app you're in
 
greatdevourer said:
The difference is that that vuln only affects you if you use MPG123. These picture exploits affect you no matter what app you're in

after further investigation, the jpeg exploit concerns a dynamic link library, so any application that uses that particular dll will potentially have the exploit. the solution is to patch the dll. this is no different than the potential bzip2 exploit on the unix side.

as for mpg123, as long as the user isn't running as root, the exploit will only affect a localized portion of the system. the unfortunate problem with windows is that most users have administrator access even when logged in as themselves.
 
jhu said:
the unfortunate problem with windows is that most users have administrator access even when logged in as themselves.

BINGO! And let's not forget, OS X (and many other OS's that are *nix flavor) askf or an admin password by default to isntall something before it does. Windows, to my knowledge, does not.
 
superbovine said:
considering Apple basically took the idea of the GUI and mouse from Xerox I wouldn't go around bashing Microsoft for copying people's idea.

It kind of like blaming someone for offering french fries at his resturant.


Ugh.

They didn't steal the idea.

http://www.mackido.com/Interface/ui_history.html


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.

...

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).
...
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.
....
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.

The article also goes into what exactly Microsoft did to Apple. Good read. Click the link.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.