4 ms·

GUI: No. [3] Touch: No. [1][2] [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-touch#History http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-touch#History [2] http://en.wikipedia.or

GUI: No. [3] Touch: No. [1][2] [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-touch#History http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-touch#History [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Touchscreen#History http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Touchscreen#History [3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_graphical_user_interface#Initial_developments http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_graphical_user_i...

nirvana 15y ago
If you want to disagree with what I said, you need to make an actual argument. Simply providing links is an automatic failure, because you're expecting me to go hunting for a counter argument to the statements I made, and none of those links were written in rebuttal to them. That being said, your links are not authoritative, nor do they even address what I said.
- mayanksinghal 15y ago
  You can't make statements like X invented Y and then add earlier versions of Y weren't Y because they were not as good as X's implementation of Y. That is very much like believing in Flying Spaghetti Monster. It's logically irrefutable, but sounds absurd. [Edit: Spell]
  - deleted 15y ago
    [deleted]
  - nirvana 15y ago
    You're knocking down a strawman. Your argument is that the guy who invented the internal combustion engine didn't actually invent it because the guy who invented the piston is the one who invented it.
    - mayanksinghal 15y ago
      Xerox is known to be the inventor of GUI. Apple made it popular. There is a difference. It's very much like how Apple invented PC but MS revolutionized and captured the market. I am giving due credit to all parties; you are omitting/trivializing all the conceptualization that went into an earlier concept - the ones that Apple's products were based upon.
      - nirvana 15y ago
        >Xerox is known to be the inventor of GUI. This is a lie that you really shouldn't be perpetuating. This isn't a question of opinion, but of historical fact, an you are telling a falsehood. There's no debating it.

nirvana 15y ago

If you want to disagree with what I said, you need to make an actual argument. Simply providing links is an automatic failure, because you're expecting me to go hunting for a counter argument to the statements I made, and none of those links were written in rebuttal to them. That being said, your links are not authoritative, nor do they even address what I said.

mayanksinghal 15y ago
You can't make statements like X invented Y and then add earlier versions of Y weren't Y because they were not as good as X's implementation of Y. That is very much like believing in Flying Spaghetti Monster. It's logically irrefutable, but sounds absurd. [Edit: Spell]
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
- nirvana 15y ago
  You're knocking down a strawman. Your argument is that the guy who invented the internal combustion engine didn't actually invent it because the guy who invented the piston is the one who invented it.
  - mayanksinghal 15y ago
    Xerox is known to be the inventor of GUI. Apple made it popular. There is a difference. It's very much like how Apple invented PC but MS revolutionized and captured the market. I am giving due credit to all parties; you are omitting/trivializing all the conceptualization that went into an earlier concept - the ones that Apple's products were based upon.
    - nirvana 15y ago
      >Xerox is known to be the inventor of GUI. This is a lie that you really shouldn't be perpetuating. This isn't a question of opinion, but of historical fact, an you are telling a falsehood. There's no debating it.