| News | Features | Interviews |
| Blog | Contact | Editorials |
| The Lilith: a graphical, mouse-driven workstation from 1980 |
| By Thom Holwerda on 2012-08-30 09:16:34 |
| Just driving yesterday's point home some more: "The Lilith was one of the first computer workstations worldwide with a high-resolution graphical display and a mouse. The first prototype was developed by Niklaus Wirth and his group between 1978 and 1980 with Richard Ohran as the hardware specialist. [...] The whole system software of the Lilith was written in Modula-2, a structured programming language which Wirth has developed at the same time. The programs were compiled into low-level M-Code instructions which could be executed by the hardware. The user interface was designed with windows, icons and pop-up menus. Compared with the character based systems available at that time, these were revolutionary metaphors in the interaction with a computer." Jos Dreesen, owner of one of the few remaining working Liliths, wrote a Lilith emulator for Linux. |
|
| RE[3]: And... |
| By danger_nakamura on 2012-08-30 20:58:33 |
|
> WHETHER YOU AGREE WITH THOSE PROTECTIONS OR NOT, they are available, and Apple et al are leveraging those protections for their designs. And, thankfully, we still live in a world where it is possible for poeple to criticize them for doing so, along with the manner in which they are doing it. Having a "right" does not mean that enforcing that "right" is the "right" thing to do. It also does not mean that no one may criticize your actions. It ALSO doesn't mean that those criticisms are not valid or correct - they very well may be. |
 - Score: 2 |
| RE: What this reminds me of |
| By Vanders on 2012-08-30 21:17:55 |
|
> It's time to let go. Nobody copied the Blit and the Lilith because they were obscure and unsuccessful back room experiments. You're not wrong. Just like that other failed experiment, the Xerox Star. Who'd want to copy that waste of space? |
| - Score: 4 |
| RE[3]: Comment by Laurence |
| By Laurence on 2012-08-30 21:41:58 |
|
It did. And (looking retrospectively) that looks weird for it too. As does the Sony's linked above. It's probably just me being the weird one though :-/ |
| - Score: 2 |
| RE[2]: And... |
| By henderson101 on 2012-08-30 22:03:34 |
|
> The Lilith was just one of many GUIs that came out before any Apple GUI. In the late 1970s and early 1980s computer world, there was considerable excitement about GUIs. Which is surely what I said? > Other players had more sophisticated GUIs Which, again, no one is denying, next? > including the Perq (mentioned in the BLIT thread). The Perq had all the elements of a modern GUI [Citation needed] To me, it looks on a par with the early versions of Windows on a monochrome monitor. But, its hard to tell, given the lack of info containing any graphical screenshots that are not blurry. > and it first appeared in 1979 -- four years before the first Apple GUI. No. Firstly, it as only announced in mid 79. It didn't ship till 1980. Bear in mind, the Lisa was 2 years in to development by that point, and was was released very late. Then compare this "complete" GUI to the Lisa (and Alto/Star) and then tell me, straight faced, you're still serious. |
| - Score: 1 |
| RE[2]: What this reminds me of |
| By Tony Swash on 2012-08-30 22:13:20 |
|
> Apple produce industry changing products. This he approves of. Then they adopt aggressive litigation strategies to protect their early advantage. This he disapproves of. You make it sound like a pattern. Apple has a forty year history - during how much of those forty decades have Apple been engaged in major IP legal actions? Is the average level of Apple's IP legal actions over those forty years higher than the average level of IP actions by other large similar tech companies? It's worth bearing in mind that Apple were taken to cleaners on IP by Microsoft back in the 1990s when MS out maneuvered the bozos who were running Apple at the time. That's just business. Apple learnt from the 1990s. That's just good business. > These recent articles showing alternative GUIs are his way of illustrating that, although Apple tend to get in there early, their innovations are things that would have and have occurred to others independently. So what? The same thing could be claimed about every invention or innovation ever made. Should there be patents or copyright on nothing? Should anything that builds on what went before (i.e. all of human science, technology and culture) be rendered open to free for all copying? > Therefore it is not proper for Apple to be granted monopolies on these innovations by the courts. Why? Let's take a couple of real world examples. Xerox held some very valuable photocopying patents for a long while. The science and technology used in the photocopying techniques involved had deep roots in the history of science and technology. Are those patents invalid because of that? Similarly Dyson holds patents of technology in his bagless vacuum cleaners, the techniques involved had deep roots in the history of science and technology. Are those patents invalid because of that? Apple is not seeking a monopoly on anything. It just wants to stop companies like Samsung blatantly copying it's products. Does anybody actually think that Samsung did not copy Apple's products? Does anybody not think that their copying was a deliberate and planned strategy? Everybody apes success but once the aping becomes systematic copying then it should be stopped. The copying was so systematic and so crass at Samsung that when they copied Apple's retails stores they actually plastered them with Apple specific icons like the Safari one. Allowing that sort and scale of copying to continue would be just plain bonkers. Imagine a car maker starts making cars that look just like BMW cars, their ads ape BMW cars, their cars contain component designs whose patents are held by BMW, their showrooms have BMW logos scattered around. Would anybody be surprised let alone shocked if BMW took them to court? |
| - Score: 1 |
| RE[4]: Comment by Laurence |
| By bassbeast on 2012-08-31 00:22:05 |
|
The reason they did that back then was the original machines were built for businesses and the vertical layout made it so you could fit an entire paper form onto the screen without scrolling. As an old greybeard I can tell you a LOT of computing in the late 70s-late 80s was all about filling in forms in the business world and by having the entire form on the screen it was easier for your average worker in government or business to just tab their way through the form filling out the fields. Of course now our screens are made for television viewing first, computer usage second, so maybe they had the right idea? i know I certainly would have a lot of leftover whitespace if I did everything fullscreen like we did back then. |
| - Score: 3 |
| RE[3]: And... |
| By tylerdurden on 2012-08-31 01:05:36 |
|
You keep making these purely subjective qualitative arguments, passing them as facts, about machines and systems which you have never used, which I find hilarious. BTW, let me let you in a little "secret": when the project that eventually led to the Lisa was started in 1978, it wasn't a GUI. In fact, Apple did not have any personnel working on GUIs until 1980 at the earliest. Edited 2012-08-31 01:09 UTC |
| - Score: 4 |
| RE: What this reminds me of |
| By tylerdurden on 2012-08-31 01:41:10 |
|
> It's time to let go. Nobody copied the Blit and the Lilith because they were obscure and unsuccessful back room experiments. They influenced no one. They led to nothing. They left no dent in the universe. So basically, what you're trying to let us know is that you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. Those were 2 very successful research projects BTW. E.g. the Lilith project produced one of the first graphic integrated development environments, and the blit was a fundamental cornerstone in (graphical) distributed computing. Those projects you just belittled, ironically, either facilitated or produced a lot of the technologies which you take now for granted in those apple products you seem to be so emotionally vested. Yes, apple has made some great contribution and products. But their quality and importance do not depend on belittling other projects and products and their achievements. |
| - Score: 4 |
| RE[5]: Comment by Laurence |
| By Doc Pain on 2012-08-31 02:57:34 |
|
> The reason they did that back then was the original machines were built for businesses and the vertical layout made it so you could fit an entire paper form onto the screen without scrolling. Correct. A typical "text processing computer" of the 1980's era is the CPT Phoenix. I still have one, even though without the software. It looks like this: http://www.minotaurz.com/compmus... The idea of "having more Y than X" is interesting when you see today's 16:9 screens littered with title bars, menu bars, start bars, icon bars, extension bars, selection bars and so on, leaving only a small amount of the program window for actual work, while to the left and the right there is unused space. Some 16:9 screens allow turning them 90° mechanically (while logically it's no problem with e. g. "xrandr --rotate right"). > As an old greybeard I can tell you a LOT of computing in the late 70s-late 80s was all about filling in forms in the business world and by having the entire form on the screen it was easier for your average worker in government or business to just tab their way through the form filling out the fields. While 3270s and 5250s were typically limited to an 80x24 grid, vertical screens allowed to bring a better overview about the whole form at first sight. I think that was a benefit for datatypists. Young people, grab a dictionary and look up "datatypist"! :-) > Of course now our screens are made for television viewing first, computer usage second, so maybe they had the right idea? It's still possible to buy 4:3 or 16:10 screens, but they are more expensive than the cheap 16:9 screns. I think this is also an economical consideration: When you say, for example, "this is a 21 inch screen", then you have a smaller (in terms of pixels to be "produced") one at 16:9 than at 4:3. So basically, I'd say 16:9 is cheaper. People want cheap, they get cheap. And if advertised as "excellent to watch movies on it", why not? > i know I certainly would have a lot of leftover whitespace if I did everything fullscreen like we did back then. I suppose you also consider "modern" web pages with fixed width, so they would fit three times in a row... ;-) |
| - Score: 4 |
| RE[3]: And... |
| By tupp on 2012-08-31 05:28:55 |
|
> To me, it looks on a par with the early versions of Windows on a monochrome monitor. Lisa and the original Mac were monochrome. The Perq could use different GUIs -- PNX, Accent, a native system (apparently), and app-specific GUIs, such as the advanced Intran Metaform GUI: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F... > But, its hard to tell, given the lack of info containing any graphical screenshots that are not blurry. There are a lot of Perq screenshots and videos. I already linked one video in a recent thread. A web search should reveal much. > and it first appeared in 1979 -- four years before the first Apple GUI. No. Firstly, it as only announced in mid 79. It didn't ship till 1980. Negatory. It was definitely being shown at sales demos and trade shows in 1979, with an 8-page brochure (and Three Rivers was taking orders in late 1979 -- not that sales matter to the existence of a device). And don't forget: the Perq was shipping in 1980 -- three years before the first Apple GUI shipped! > Bear in mind, the Lisa was 2 years in to development by that point, and was was released very late. There is no reason to doubt that the Perq (and its GUIs) were in development before the Lisa was in development. By the way, the Three Rivers company was founded in 1974, two years before Apple existed. > Then compare this "complete" GUI to the Lisa (and Alto/Star) and then tell me, straight faced, you're still serious. Definitely serious. The Perq/Accent GUI had icons/folders, overlapping windows, etc. The Perq/Metaform GUI added even more, such as drop-down menus and scroll bars. By the way, both of these GUIs existed prior to the Apple Lisa. However, the Xerox Star probably preceded the Metaform additions (Metaform also worked on the Star). Of course, the Xerox Star also preceded the first Apple GUI by two years. |
| - Score: 4 |
| News | Features | Interviews |
| Blog | Contact | Editorials |
