4 ms·

Great article helping to dispel the myth that Apple simply stole the GUI from Xerox. The Lisa and the Mac were truly revolutionary, introducing many GUI concep

Great article helping to dispel the myth that Apple simply stole the GUI from Xerox. The Lisa and the Mac were truly revolutionary, introducing many GUI concepts that we take for granted today. Another rather interesting Xerox PARC technology in the history of GUIs is the Xerox Star interface, which actually beat the Apple Lisa in releasing a GUI with a desktop metaphor. The Xerox Star was a commercial workstation and was this one of the first GUIs that customers could actually purchase. However, it was very expensive (more expensive than the Lisa, which failed partly due to its $10K [in 1983 dollars] price point). Even though the Xerox Star preceded the Lisa when it came to the desktop metaphor, the UI would be unfamiliar to Mac and Windows users, featuring rather complex mouse and keyboard gestures to use GUI features, compared to the Lisa’s conventions, which have largely endured to this day, to the point that it shouldn’t take too long for a Mac or Windows user to learn how to use a Lisa.

masswerk 3y ago
Everyone involved in the efforts of developing a consistent and consumer-ready UI and stringent metaphors from the beginnings at PARC deserves due respect. E.g., the team at Xerox SDD (Systems Development Department) developing the Star, the team at PERQ (Three Rivers), and, of course, Apple (there were probably a few more). They are probably somewhat undeserved in the shadow of what was still early (and often inconsistent) experiments. And, yes, the first commercial GUI systems were expensive, as they required fast processors and comparably lots of RAM, which was expensive. It was probably still too early for consumer oriented systems and the systems that were had to address special niches, like knowledge workers and experts. Even the Mac just barely managed a certain level of affordabilty, and this only by (initially) including just a barely viable amount of RAM. (Compare 128K for Mac vs 2MB for the Lisa, which also meant stripping advanced features like multitasking.)
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
drewcoo 3y ago
Xerox did not "beat" Lisa. They showed what they had to Jobs and like all great artists, he stole . . . https://www.newsweek.com/silicon-valley-apple-steve-jobs-xerox-437972 https://www.newsweek.com/silicon-valley-apple-steve-jobs-xer...
- AlbertCory 3y ago
  You fell for the myth. Stanford explodes it: https://web.stanford.edu/dept/SUL/sites/mac/parc.html https://web.stanford.edu/dept/SUL/sites/mac/parc.html I was there. This is mostly correct. Jobs didn't "steal" it; he finally believed what his own people had been trying to tell him.
  - masswerk 3y ago
    See also "On Xerox, Apple and Progress" by Bruce Horn https://www.folklore.org/StoryView.py?&story=On_Xerox,_Apple_and_Progress.txt https://www.folklore.org/StoryView.py?&story=On_Xerox,_Apple...
- masswerk 3y ago
  Even it were true that the Lisa had been a simple copy of Alto software (it isn't), or there hadn't been any prototypes for a windowed bitmap display at Apple before this visit (there was), it's technically somewhat difficult to steal what you own. Notably, the (in)famous PARC visit was coordinated in fulfilment of a condition for an exchange of stocks between Xerox (who had advanced Apple on the matter) and Apple, when Apple was still a private company. So Apple actually co-owned part of Xerox PARC. (In this regard, it may be even a bit ironic that the Apple delegation was shown less than what had been the usual program for similar tours, of which there had been many before this.) Nevertheless, Apple licensed quite a bit from Xerox. Also, it may be important to note that the focus at Xerox PARC and Apple was quite different. If there had been inspirations initially (of course, there were), these developed quite differently, even radically so. You may also say, Xerox had a fair chance with the Star, being on the market without competition for years before the Lisa was eventually released. But Xerox PARC was so much more than just Smalltalk, and Xerox still got a rich return of investment out of PARC. (So it wasn't a failure either.)
  - masswerk 3y ago
    PS: If you really want a prime example for parasitic Apple, look no further than the Mac eventually finding its killer application in desktop publishing. In order to so, Apple came up with the LaserWriter: They took Canon's LBP-CX laser printer engine (laser printing had been developed at Xerox PARC), bolted on their RIP utilizing PAL and RAM chips from other companies, and as they were at it, also hooked up their LocalTalk network interface. The software, PostScript, of course, came from Adobe, the founder of which, John Warnock, had come from PARC. This all was covered up by a case by Frog Design and Apple finally slapped their logo on this. As before, Apple fiendishly covered their traces by licensing what had not been developed in-house… ;-) None of this had been possible, hadn't Jobs seen the Canon LBP-CX, while negotiating for a supply of floppy drives, and hadn't he been aware of John Warnock and his PostScript development, and, of course, none of this had been possible without Xerox PARC. Still, we call this legitimate development.
AlbertCory 3y ago
> the UI would be unfamiliar to Mac and Windows users True. Star had something no other system's ever tried to do, namely dedicated MOVE / COPY / PROPERTIES / DELETE keys, which were supposed to be universal for all types of objects. Nowadays, cut / copy / paste have become the universal operations, and mouse button chording / two finger press have become the equivalent of the PROPS key. Also, Star had no menu bar across the top, another thing that would be pretty confounding for a modern user. That's not to say dedicated keys were the right idea! It was just one of those things that sounded good at the time but didn't catch on.

masswerk 3y ago

Everyone involved in the efforts of developing a consistent and consumer-ready UI and stringent metaphors from the beginnings at PARC deserves due respect. E.g., the team at Xerox SDD (Systems Development Department) developing the Star, the team at PERQ (Three Rivers), and, of course, Apple (there were probably a few more). They are probably somewhat undeserved in the shadow of what was still early (and often inconsistent) experiments. And, yes, the first commercial GUI systems were expensive, as they required fast processors and comparably lots of RAM, which was expensive. It was probably still too early for consumer oriented systems and the systems that were had to address special niches, like knowledge workers and experts. Even the Mac just barely managed a certain level of affordabilty, and this only by (initially) including just a barely viable amount of RAM. (Compare 128K for Mac vs 2MB for the Lisa, which also meant stripping advanced features like multitasking.)

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

drewcoo 3y ago

Xerox did not "beat" Lisa. They showed what they had to Jobs and like all great artists, he stole . . . https://www.newsweek.com/silicon-valley-apple-steve-jobs-xerox-437972 https://www.newsweek.com/silicon-valley-apple-steve-jobs-xer...

AlbertCory 3y ago
You fell for the myth. Stanford explodes it: https://web.stanford.edu/dept/SUL/sites/mac/parc.html https://web.stanford.edu/dept/SUL/sites/mac/parc.html I was there. This is mostly correct. Jobs didn't "steal" it; he finally believed what his own people had been trying to tell him.
- masswerk 3y ago
  See also "On Xerox, Apple and Progress" by Bruce Horn https://www.folklore.org/StoryView.py?&story=On_Xerox,_Apple_and_Progress.txt https://www.folklore.org/StoryView.py?&story=On_Xerox,_Apple...
masswerk 3y ago
Even it were true that the Lisa had been a simple copy of Alto software (it isn't), or there hadn't been any prototypes for a windowed bitmap display at Apple before this visit (there was), it's technically somewhat difficult to steal what you own. Notably, the (in)famous PARC visit was coordinated in fulfilment of a condition for an exchange of stocks between Xerox (who had advanced Apple on the matter) and Apple, when Apple was still a private company. So Apple actually co-owned part of Xerox PARC. (In this regard, it may be even a bit ironic that the Apple delegation was shown less than what had been the usual program for similar tours, of which there had been many before this.) Nevertheless, Apple licensed quite a bit from Xerox. Also, it may be important to note that the focus at Xerox PARC and Apple was quite different. If there had been inspirations initially (of course, there were), these developed quite differently, even radically so. You may also say, Xerox had a fair chance with the Star, being on the market without competition for years before the Lisa was eventually released. But Xerox PARC was so much more than just Smalltalk, and Xerox still got a rich return of investment out of PARC. (So it wasn't a failure either.)
- masswerk 3y ago
  PS: If you really want a prime example for parasitic Apple, look no further than the Mac eventually finding its killer application in desktop publishing. In order to so, Apple came up with the LaserWriter: They took Canon's LBP-CX laser printer engine (laser printing had been developed at Xerox PARC), bolted on their RIP utilizing PAL and RAM chips from other companies, and as they were at it, also hooked up their LocalTalk network interface. The software, PostScript, of course, came from Adobe, the founder of which, John Warnock, had come from PARC. This all was covered up by a case by Frog Design and Apple finally slapped their logo on this. As before, Apple fiendishly covered their traces by licensing what had not been developed in-house… ;-) None of this had been possible, hadn't Jobs seen the Canon LBP-CX, while negotiating for a supply of floppy drives, and hadn't he been aware of John Warnock and his PostScript development, and, of course, none of this had been possible without Xerox PARC. Still, we call this legitimate development.

AlbertCory 3y ago

> the UI would be unfamiliar to Mac and Windows users True. Star had something no other system's ever tried to do, namely dedicated MOVE / COPY / PROPERTIES / DELETE keys, which were supposed to be universal for all types of objects. Nowadays, cut / copy / paste have become the universal operations, and mouse button chording / two finger press have become the equivalent of the PROPS key. Also, Star had no menu bar across the top, another thing that would be pretty confounding for a modern user. That's not to say dedicated keys were the right idea! It was just one of those things that sounded good at the time but didn't catch on.