> i do think they made noticeably (and fascinatingly) different choices not only in what they designed for their user interfaces but also what they thought of a

> i do think they made noticeably (and fascinatingly) different choices not only in what they designed for their user interfaces but also what they thought of as a good user interface Though software written originally for the Xerox Interlisp systems got ported to the MIT Lisp Machine descendants, since the hardware was more capable with more memory. For example Intellicorp KEE (Knowledge Engineering Environment) was ported. It retained much of its original UI (which included extensive graphics features and an interface builder), when running on Symbolics Genera. It looks like one is using an Xerox Interlisp UI when running it on a Symbolics. https://vimeo.com/909417132 https://vimeo.com/909417132 For example at 08:30 the screen looks like an Interlisp system, even though it is Symbolics Genera. Xerox PARC also had real MIT CADRs in their network. I remember seeing a photo, with an office, where the Xerox PARC employee had both an Interlisp workstation and (IIRC) a Symbolics. There is also a video for the IJCAI 81 (International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence), with demos of an Interlisp system and a MIT Lisp Machine, both demos recorded at Xerox PARC.