Slashdot Log In
The Real History of the GUI
Posted by
Hemos
on Mon Aug 20, 2001 02:15 PM
from the pretty-amusing-take-on-things dept.
from the pretty-amusing-take-on-things dept.
Big Nothing writes "Mike Tuck @ webmasterbase.com has written a piece on the development of GUIs. Like most other articles on webmasterbase.com it is fairly non-technical, but entertaining nonetheless." Update: 08/21 02:45 AM GMT by T : Note that the link above takes you to the print-friendly version of the story; for online reading, you might prefer this version instead.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Revenge of the Nerds (Score:1)
Am I the only one reminded of the PBS 'Revenge of the Nerds' history of silly valley? I think it was PBS that did it; came out a couple years ago.
Regardless, I think I'll go whack myself on the head with a big rock.
-- RLJ
Bring on.. (Score:1)
GUI (Score:1)
Sheesh (Score:1)
A Correction... (Score:4, Funny)
Actually, the two cavemen were named "Ugh" and "Slug."
I hope this clears things up a bit for everyone.
Yay GEM! (Score:3, Informative)
Just need to figure out a hack to hook it into my network now
Am I the only one who misses the CLI ? (Score:3, Insightful)
The world would be a better place if GUIs had never been invented.
Give me an Xterm, emacs and lynx over a point-and-slobber interface anyday.
finally Smalltalk gets its dues (Score:2, Interesting)
*smalltalk was the first cross platform portable bytecode language
* smalltalk is good pure OO unlike C++ (not pure OO) and Java (not good OO - the class hierarchy is a monster - ST's object heirarchy is much more clean)
do we really need more of this (Score:2, Insightful)
the real inventor (Score:1)
I was going to rip this article a new one, but.. (Score:5, Informative)
I was going to rip this article a new one, but i'm glad they got it right. What I would consider to be the first GUI was Sutherland's "Sketchpad" system from the early 60's. The military had similar sorts of things predating Sutherland, but nothing quite flexible enough to really be called a full blown GUI.
Anybody with their brains in the right place can tell you that the GUI was not invented by Xerox PARC. They may have done a great deal to push the idea, or perhaps simply been at the right place at the right time, but the basic idea of using graphics as a means to interact with a machine predates PARC by about 20 years.
If you really wanna have some fun, check out Doug Englebart's 1968 presentation that introduced the world to the mouse, chordboard and other interesting stuff. There are plenty of links to it, but here's a good one [rwth-aachen.de] incase you cant find any. A while back, there was a site that offered his entire presentation in RealVideo format, IIRC..I wish someone would post a link to it, or perhaps a better (re: DivX, or straight MPEG) link... It almost brings tears to my eyes when I watch it.
GUI Design (Score:4, Interesting)
The GUI became popular because it really made most things that users need to do on a computer far easier than cryptic command lines. For years GUI's have been refined for ease of use. We're now coming to the limit of current icon-oriented design. There's just so many ways that an icon-based system can be presented to the user before usability starts going into the toilet.
We moved to GUI's because command line interfaces only got us so far, and some day someone will come up with a better-than-icon based system that is more logical. We'll all say "gosh, why didn't I think of that?" and everyone will jump into the "new way" of thinking.
I have visions of time-oriented interfaces that respond to "get me the spec sheet for the network I did last week sometime" and "set a new meeting for next Tuesday with Jim and Bob in the conference room". These new interfaces will be able to store and retrieve information based upon how we think, not in the traditional tree-like-structures we're currently used to. The concepts behind OO/RDBMS systems have some potential, such as nested tables and object oriented models, but don't present their information to a user very easily.
I don't see new interfaces becoming popular until they target the non-computer user market. I envision voice-activated systems, but they tend to be annoying to other people around. Mouse navigation doesn't seem to be viable because of it's limited 2D space, and thus the 2D GUI. The 3D systems (see spaceball on google) look neat, but aren't very intuitive to users. We may wind up with virtual filing cabinets, but hopefully we'll stay away from the Packard Bell Navigator!
Is there anyone (university or other) that is working on a new interface concept? I'd be interested in hearing what works and what doesn't. I know M$ and (Cr)Apple invest millions into GUI research, so I wouldn't be surprised if we saw something new out of those camps in the next few years.
And no, I don't count XP's "new and improved" GUI anything more than an over-hyped icon-based system.
[/random thoughts]
Make up for what Windows lacks (Score:2, Insightful)
Where it all began... (Score:3, Funny)
It's amazing to see how so many beautiful and wonderful things happened as a result of two guys in the backseat of a car.
Wait a minute...
--SC
X is an Operating System ??? (Score:1)
Netscape's history of the GUI browser (Score:1, Funny)
640K oughta be enough for anybody (Score:2)
Now, I've spoken to people who were there to hear, firsthand, Bill at a big computer show (SIGGRAPH?) in the early 90s, remark that "it's impossible to write a preemptive multitasking OS that runs in less than 4MB RAM" - while there were computers on the show floor doing precisely that. But that's not quite the same quote, and though I can imagine it evolving over the years to "640K oughta be enough" I just don't think that's what happened.
Any ideas? Anyone know where the quote supposedly appeared?
The site itself (Score:2)
Ok, so it _was_ a long article... (Score:1)
Here's the 'cleaned-up' link from me: Enjoy [hughes.net]
Good article but... (Score:1)
The way they tell it in Pirates of Silicon Valley is much more exciting. *cough*
GUI 'simplicity'? (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, I beg to differ. You could say I've kind of been enlightened after listening to the epitome of computer cluelessness: my mother.
She was struggling with the Windows explorer GUI, trying to move a file. And then, she said, and I'm not kidding: "Oh, I prefered DOS, you know, you typed a command, and it worked!"
Maybe what simplicity is really about, is determinism in the way the computer behaves?
oohlala (Score:1)
Give me some real tech stuff. If you want to speak in caveman langugage, buy yourself a time travel module and send yourself to the stone age. We are living in the 21st century here.
Lost Technologies. (Score:1)
I remember when MacOS System 7 (code named Blue) came out (91, 92 or so, I forget when) there were parallel OS teams, working on Pink and Red. Pink was supposed to be near term ideas, a brand new OS based on Object technologies. Red was supposed to be long term groovy stuff, really whizbang.
Now close to 10 years later MacOS 9 is obviously an updated and freshened Sys 7 with no cutting edge stuff (where is OpenDoc and Cyberdog), Taligent a distant memory, and Red never heard from again. Microsoft must have similar killed R & D (you think Bob was the only GUI idea they ever came up with, it's just the one you know about). What ideas are lurking someplace needing a better processor and some code spit and polish?
That "article" (Score:1)
MIDI (Score:1)
One line that I found interesting in the article:
Like the Amiga, the ST couldn't compete with the big boys, nor with Amiga for gamers, but its sophisticated sound capabilities earned it a niche with audio editors and musicians.
In reality the sound on the Atari ST was somewhat subpar and it was seriously outmatched by the Amiga (note that I was a massive Atari ST fan so I'm not biased when I say that...The ST ran at 8Mhz whereas the lowly Amiga only ran at 7.14!). What they are probably referring to is that the Atari ST, in a very odd piece of design, had a MIDI in and out port on it (no thru though) which single-handedly catapulted it in the upper echelon of PCs for electronic musicians. Pretty silly really as you could inexpensively add MIDI to most other PCs, but in a strange twist of events rather than making musicians buy the ST, it made lots of ST owners musicians (or at least wannabe musicians with their Casio SK1 in tow)...
irony (Score:2)
Not even the history of computer graphics article has any pictures. You'd think that was a sure bet.
SUI (Score:2)
Am I the only one? (Score:1)
<html> <body> </body> </html>
(That's articles, front page, anything.)Was it just a fluke? Or should I suggest that he send an HTML 4.0 compliant webpage as the default, since I'm sure that would work just fine? (If he's sensing browser types. ;)
Well... (Score:2)
He refers to X as an OS, it is not an Operating Sytem - it's a Graphical Environment (and even that's putting it simple).
Also, Windows/386 - which was a full 32-bit version of 2.0 was the first Windows to take advantage of the 80386's features. He states that Windows 3.0 was, although it was actually an enhancement to W/386 that dropped support for the 80286 and relied exclusively on 32-bit mode.
He also skipped right over IBM LanManager, which was the precursor to OS/2.
OK, enough nitpicking... I guess the Ugh and Grub or what-have-you got to me more than I thought.
NLS Video clip (Score:1)
Gestures (Score:1)
More gesture controls need to be added (sure, we have drag n plop but we need more, maybe to aid accessability too)
Whats the gesture for reboot?
Hey... (Score:1)
Unless it was a quickly discarded feature in AmigaOS 1.0 - 1.1, I'm pretty sure it never existed at all.
I have to agree it was sad that Amiga didn't catch with the masses. Long live emulation! :-)
Hmmm... (Score:1)
I will give the author credit for the SmallTalk stuff. I am just not sure of the Microsoft stuff he is saying. I am no big fan of Microsoft, but this article smells fishy.
I am sure I will get trolled for this, but you have to admit that since his link to the one Microsoft webpage doesn't work, makes you wonder about the rest of his sources.
Is choice good or bad? (Score:1)
While X was a well-written and easily handled GUI, it never settled on a particular "look and feel," and as a result at least three different X interfaces floated around; this was probably not the main reason why X never caught on much outside the UNIX community, but certainly was part of the explanation. X is still a viable graphical environment today, and has a relatively small but vocal following.
So what are we to make of this? Is this history repeating itself? I'm torn, personally. While I think choice is great (and needed), a common "default" interface, libraries, and inter-application messaging system sure would make X Window a lot simpler for the average person to adopt.
Re: The "Real" History of the GUI (Score:1)
I wrote that article. Thanks for your replies -- many of you have written me personally to correct me on one point or another. I'm in the process of writing an errata/addendum to the original article to make corrections, clarify hazy statements, etc. etc. etc. Hopefully SitePoint/Webmasterbase will print the addendum soon.
Some of what will be fixed include:
-- the fact that X is not an OS, but merely an interface (I knew that, but I didn't state it very clearly)
-- the non-Xerox origin of Simula-67
-- Q-DOS is not, of course, a programming language, but an operating system. Major typographical goof
-- lots of info on Jef Raskin, including his claim that he came up with the idea of an all-graphical interface as early as 1967
By the way, the whole "caveman" motif, and the tone of the article in general, comes from my predisposition for presenting technical information in a way that non-technical readers can understand and enjoy. I do the same thing on my Windows resource site. I could have easily dumped the whole Ugh and Glug (or Ugh and Slug, LOL) bit and written the article in a much more technical fashion, but while that would have made the cognoscenti happier, it would have left the rest of the readership in the dust. Also, I am not a Mac fan (I'm strictly Wintel, for better or worse), and though I did see "Pirates of Silicon Valley," I could see plenty of errors and sensationalism in the piece, and did not refer to it in any way for the article.
Again, thanks for all the input.
Finally gets Xerox/Apple right (Score:2, Informative)
"Apple negotiated a deal with Xerox; in return for a block of Apple stock, Xerox allowed Jobs and his team to tour PARC, take notes, and implement some of the ideas and concepts being bounced around at PARC in their own creations."
Pirates seriously messed with history in this regard, having never touched on the deal Jobs made with Xerox, and the made-up commentary by the "Wozniak" character.
But on the downside, the author doesn't spell Jef Raskin correctly.
Interest in alternative OSes and Steve's return. (Score:1)
What? He never heard of a PERQ? (Score:1)
For info:
http://perqlogic.com/rdd/PERQ.html
http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~pmaydell/PER
http://vonhagen.org/perq-gen-faq.html
Some corrections regarding the Alto (Score:5, Insightful)
The Alto itself didn't really have a GUI. What it had were graphical applications. One of them was Smalltalk, which had its own private windowed environment. Another was Bravo, the first WYSIWYG multi-font editor. You could write other applications yourself, in Mesa, Xerox's own language, or BCPL, in which the underlying tools were written. The underlying environment was a single-task command line environment comparable to early DOS.
Bravo was used as the programmer's editor. The internal representation of Bravo documents was ASCII text, followed by a control-Z, followed by the formatting information. The command-line tools, which understood control-Z as EOF, could thus happily process Bravo documents. Programs for the Alto were normally written in proportional fonts, with boldface and italics as needed.
The Alto hardware itself was built by Data General under contract to Xerox. It was basically a Data General Nova with custom microcode in a desk-height rackmount case containing the computer and a 14" removable disk cartridge drive (equivalent to a DEC RK05, if anybody cares.) The display, a portrait-mode b/w full-page display built at PARC, was the main hardware innovation, along with the 3MB Ethernet and the mouse.
The Alto project had several components. First was the concept of a number of single-user workstations connected by a network providing dedicated services. Each Alto had very limited disk space, but file servers were available. All serious storage was on the file server. There was also a print server, an Alto connected to a modified Xerox copier. PARC management was working on the assumption that, although all this was far too expensive to deploy, in time the hardware would get cheaper and it would be useful. They were right. The fact that they then blew the business aspect wasn't PARC's fault.
The other big push was Alan Kay's Dynabook. Kay was big on simulation and teaching kids to use computers. His real direction for Smalltalk was what we today disparaginly call "edutainment", games with educational intent. This seems strange now, but that's where he was going. He's continued with that direction, at the Media Lab and elsewhere. But it never took off.
PARC tried to commercialize the technology as the Xerox Star. This wasn't a general-purpose system; it was more like a really good dedicated word processor. Wang then ruled that market, with what was called "shared logic word processing", dumb terminals all running one common application on a time-shared host. This was cheap enough offices could afford it.
The Star, with a real computer at every desk, a big display, and a LAN, did roughly the same function, but at higher cost. It was cool, but didn't sell. It was a closed system; you ran the Star app, and that was it. PARC didn't trust the users to mess with the system, so you couldn't do anything they hadn't anticipated.
The computer scientists at PARC didn't see that the future was open systems running unreliable software. Really. That was the missed vision. Nobody dreamed that something like DOS, let alone non-protected mode multitasking, would end up in clerical offices. Obviously, it would break all the time, files would get lost, and the cost to the organization would be enormous. Remember, Xerox was a rental company back then; if the copier broke, it was Xerox's problem. So they took reliability very seriously. And, sadly, it cost them.
GUI can help a user? depends.... (Score:1)
[me]: You type DIR and press the ENTER key and tell me what you see.
[idiot1]: I ain't see nothing
[me]: Are you sure you are at the right directory? Please type CD BACKSLASH and press the ENTER key again. What do you see?
[idiot1]: Still nothing. Do you have somone else more knowledgeable who can help?
[me]:
[idiot1]: nothing, it's blank.
[me]: Have you turn on your terminal?
[idiot1]:....I don't think so.
Months later the same user is having brand new OS/2 to replace her dumb term DOS 3.1.
[me]: Please move your mouse pointer to the 3270 icon and double.....
[idiot1]: WAIT!!!! NOT THAT FAST! I DIDN'T SEE ANY 3270 ICON ON IT!!!!
[me]: Calm down please. All desktop is preloaded with this apps.....now what does the mouse pointer pointing at?
[idiot1]: Let me see...the I of the IBM logo.
[me]: You've a wallpaper on your desktop?
[idiot1]: Not wallpaper, but a mouse pad with IBM logo on my desktop.
[me]:
[idiot1]: ARE YOU SURE YOU CAN HELP?! I NEED TO GET JOB DONE CAN'T YOU FIX THAT QUICKIER?!
[me]:
[idiot1]: APPRECIATED!
What about Bill Verplank? (Score:1)
One thing I dont understand, (Score:1)
Human beings are very good at telling when a object is infrount of or behind another object.
Plus thanks to the growth of FPS's almost all new computers today are able to run a 3d api of some sort, either directx3d or openGL. So there is no problem on the hardware frount.
Im not proud i just what using my puter to seem like Im playing quake all the time.
just a thought.
This is funny? (Score:1)
Big deal.
Well, I guess black and white are colors... (Score:1)
...which is ironic, since the first Macintoshes were completely monochrome...
No pictures?!?! (Score:2)
"Talking about music is like dancing about architecture."
CP/M on IBM? (Score:1)
CP/M was an 8 bit OS. The 16 bit IBM never ran CP/M, it might have ran CP/M86 at the start, certainly other early 16 bit machines like the ACT SIRIUS 1 [m.nu] came with both CP/M86 and MSDOS
Shells vs. GUI's vs. Muhammed Ali (Score:1)
http://www.thekeep.org/~rmitz/blazemonger.html
Eww gross! (Score:1)
I knew it!
Re:GOATSE.CX LINK (Score:2, Funny)
....make the lamest concievable joke? (Score:1)
Re:Things that make you go hmmm... (Score:1)
Dealer of lightning (Score:1)
Dealers of Lightning : Xerox Parc and the Dawn of the Computer Age -- by Michael Hiltzik; Paperback [amazon.com]
I read it recently and it just makesyou stand in awe and wonder at what these guys actually did, and what We, as users, acutally have staring us right in the face