5 ms·

The likelihood of any legal restriction was probably close to zero - it’s only from today’s era of hyper-regulation that we might even imagine something like th

The likelihood of any legal restriction was probably close to zero - it’s only from today’s era of hyper-regulation that we might even imagine something like that. Most likely it was a deliberate technical limitation. After all, dialog windows themselves were already overlapped. I remember well what a headache it was to program and render graphical elements on those old machines (PC AT 80286 with 256 KB of RAM).

giobox 7mo ago
> The likelihood of any legal restriction was probably close to zero - it’s only from today’s era of hyper-regulation that we might even imagine something like that. While it's demonstrated to be likely incorrect here, it's not a wild theory. Apple and Microsoft spent a lot of time in court over the "Look and Feel" cases regarding the windowing UI Apple felt Microsoft had stolen. The lawsuit was first filed in '88 and was widely reported on in tech and mainstream press etc, dragging on throughout the 90s. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Computer,_Inc._v._Microsoft_Corp https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Computer,_Inc._v._Micros....
- parl_match 7mo ago
  Yeah. > The likelihood of any legal restriction was probably close to zero - it’s only from today’s era of hyper-regulation that we might even imagine something like that. Normally I'd agree with a statement like this. Except this is a very specific case.
- plorkyeran 7mo ago
  That lawsuit happened in response to Window 2.0, and the fact that they adopted overlapping windows in 2.0 strongly suggests that Microsoft did not think that the change would lead to legal action and was taken by surprise.
  - ndiddy 7mo ago
    Apple threatened to sue Microsoft when Windows 1.0 came out in 1985, but Gates responded by threatening to stop developing software for the Macintosh, pull the Macintosh software Microsoft had already developed from shelves, and refuse to renew Apple's license for Applesoft Basic for the Apple II. Sculley backed down and signed an agreement with Microsoft granting them the right to create derivative works of the Macintosh and Lisa UIs and a worldwide, royalty-free, perpetual license to use those derivative works in current and future software. In return all Apple got from Microsoft was a promise to continue supporting Word and Excel on the Mac until October 1986, which they would have done anyway. This surrender agreement is likely why Microsoft felt confident enough to adopt overlapping windows in Windows 2.0. However, Apple's 1988 lawsuit didn't get dismissed because the judge decided that Windows 1.0 and Windows 2.0 are fundamentally different, and the agreement only covered the aspects of Windows 2.0 that also appear in Windows 1.0. The case ground on for several years before eventually getting dismissed because what Microsoft had licensed from Apple were generic ideas that shouldn't be subject to copyright. For example, Microsoft were free to use a trash can to represent deleted files as long as they didn't use Apple's specific rendering of a trash can.
    - WillAdams 7mo ago
      Not just that, he also got MacBasic killed: https://www.folklore.org/MacBasic.html https://www.folklore.org/MacBasic.html
jmclnx 7mo ago
> Most likely it was a deliberate technical limitation At the time I remember reading that was kind of the issue. I thought the article said something like "when Gates saw the Xerox machine, the display had no overlapping windows". So M/S cloned it as he saw it. Once M/S W1.0 was developed he saw the demo again and was surprised the windows overlapped. So they rushed 2.0 to fix it. But funny, with all people on Linux using tiling window managers these days, it seems Windows 1.0 was ahead of its time :)
- Affric 7mo ago
  Yeah, it’s interesting how the desktop metaphor evolved over time but increasing display size and the ability to have multiple workspaces surely is a huge part of what makes tiling almost work. And tiling still largely doesn't work with small windows.
- lovich 7mo ago
  You can tile windows in Windows as well with the windows key+ arrow buttons. The default is just left, right, and top, bottom but if you install Power Toys and use Fancy Zones you can customize the zones https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/powertoys/fancyzones https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/powertoys/fancyzon.... There’s also Crop and Lock which can help you cut out extraneous parts of certain windows https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/powertoys/crop-and-lock https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/powertoys/crop-and...
  - hulitu 7mo ago
    > You can tile windows in Windows as well with the windows key+ arrow buttons. _only_ if you enable hard corners, or something like this, which makes moving windows between screens, difficult.
    - lovich 7mo ago
      What makes it hard to move windows between screens? You can do it with the key command or by dragging with the mouse. I have a three monitor setup and have no problem rearranging the windows as I please
KellyCriterion 7mo ago
But hey, for 320x200 (8b) / 640x400 (4b) you had a linear framebuffer early on, before VESA&Co came along :-D (this was around IRQ13, IIRC,right?)
blkhawk 7mo ago
Actually it was very much a legal thing. For example i can point to GEM that had to have its windows glued down because of this. See GEM 1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GEM_(desktop_environment)#/media/File:Gem_11_Desktop.png https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GEM_(desktop_environment)#/med... vs GEM2 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GEM_(desktop_environment)#/media/File:Gem20about.png https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GEM_(desktop_environment)#/med... Apple sued Digital Research and later Microsoft when they enabled overlapping windows for windows 2.0. Also lol a 286 with 256kb of ram - that is a very very weird combination you would never see in a desktop. Generally early IBM PC compatibles might have just 512KB of ram but around 1985 and later 640KB really became the norm even on 8088 and 8086 based systems. I am not counting stuff that really didn't get anywhere like the PCjr and that thing was much earlier in 1983. 286 based systems once they became more common started a 1mb RAM.
- whobre 7mo ago
  They didn't even sue DRI, just threatened to sue: https://nemanjatrifunovic.substack.com/p/history-of-the-gem-desktop-environment https://nemanjatrifunovic.substack.com/p/history-of-the-gem-...
charonn0 7mo ago
I don't think regulations are the legal restrictions people are referring to, but rather private lawsuits.
- saghm 7mo ago
  I also can't imagine calling our current era "hyper-regulation" with respect to software. The Microsoft antitrust case was only 16 years after Windows 1.0, but this year will be the 25th since then.
mmooss 7mo ago
> it’s only from today’s era of hyper-regulation that we might even imagine something like that. How is regulation involved? The OP's idea was that Microsoft feared being sued by other companies over IP. If there is some increase in lawsuits between companies, I'd like to see evidence. Also, my understanding is that there was a lot more regulation in the 1970s and extending into the 1980s, though it was probably declining by then.
undeveloper 7mo ago
i would not describe "today's era" as "hyper-regulation". we're actively removing regulation day over day
- userbinator 7mo ago
  And replacing it with even more regulations.

giobox 7mo ago

> The likelihood of any legal restriction was probably close to zero - it’s only from today’s era of hyper-regulation that we might even imagine something like that. While it's demonstrated to be likely incorrect here, it's not a wild theory. Apple and Microsoft spent a lot of time in court over the "Look and Feel" cases regarding the windowing UI Apple felt Microsoft had stolen. The lawsuit was first filed in '88 and was widely reported on in tech and mainstream press etc, dragging on throughout the 90s. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Computer,_Inc._v._Microsoft_Corp https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Computer,_Inc._v._Micros....

parl_match 7mo ago
Yeah. > The likelihood of any legal restriction was probably close to zero - it’s only from today’s era of hyper-regulation that we might even imagine something like that. Normally I'd agree with a statement like this. Except this is a very specific case.
plorkyeran 7mo ago
That lawsuit happened in response to Window 2.0, and the fact that they adopted overlapping windows in 2.0 strongly suggests that Microsoft did not think that the change would lead to legal action and was taken by surprise.
- ndiddy 7mo ago
  Apple threatened to sue Microsoft when Windows 1.0 came out in 1985, but Gates responded by threatening to stop developing software for the Macintosh, pull the Macintosh software Microsoft had already developed from shelves, and refuse to renew Apple's license for Applesoft Basic for the Apple II. Sculley backed down and signed an agreement with Microsoft granting them the right to create derivative works of the Macintosh and Lisa UIs and a worldwide, royalty-free, perpetual license to use those derivative works in current and future software. In return all Apple got from Microsoft was a promise to continue supporting Word and Excel on the Mac until October 1986, which they would have done anyway. This surrender agreement is likely why Microsoft felt confident enough to adopt overlapping windows in Windows 2.0. However, Apple's 1988 lawsuit didn't get dismissed because the judge decided that Windows 1.0 and Windows 2.0 are fundamentally different, and the agreement only covered the aspects of Windows 2.0 that also appear in Windows 1.0. The case ground on for several years before eventually getting dismissed because what Microsoft had licensed from Apple were generic ideas that shouldn't be subject to copyright. For example, Microsoft were free to use a trash can to represent deleted files as long as they didn't use Apple's specific rendering of a trash can.
  - WillAdams 7mo ago
    Not just that, he also got MacBasic killed: https://www.folklore.org/MacBasic.html https://www.folklore.org/MacBasic.html

jmclnx 7mo ago

> Most likely it was a deliberate technical limitation At the time I remember reading that was kind of the issue. I thought the article said something like "when Gates saw the Xerox machine, the display had no overlapping windows". So M/S cloned it as he saw it. Once M/S W1.0 was developed he saw the demo again and was surprised the windows overlapped. So they rushed 2.0 to fix it. But funny, with all people on Linux using tiling window managers these days, it seems Windows 1.0 was ahead of its time :)

Affric 7mo ago
Yeah, it’s interesting how the desktop metaphor evolved over time but increasing display size and the ability to have multiple workspaces surely is a huge part of what makes tiling almost work. And tiling still largely doesn't work with small windows.
lovich 7mo ago
You can tile windows in Windows as well with the windows key+ arrow buttons. The default is just left, right, and top, bottom but if you install Power Toys and use Fancy Zones you can customize the zones https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/powertoys/fancyzones https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/powertoys/fancyzon.... There’s also Crop and Lock which can help you cut out extraneous parts of certain windows https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/powertoys/crop-and-lock https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/powertoys/crop-and...
- hulitu 7mo ago
  > You can tile windows in Windows as well with the windows key+ arrow buttons. _only_ if you enable hard corners, or something like this, which makes moving windows between screens, difficult.
  - lovich 7mo ago
    What makes it hard to move windows between screens? You can do it with the key command or by dragging with the mouse. I have a three monitor setup and have no problem rearranging the windows as I please

KellyCriterion 7mo ago

But hey, for 320x200 (8b) / 640x400 (4b) you had a linear framebuffer early on, before VESA&Co came along :-D (this was around IRQ13, IIRC,right?)

blkhawk 7mo ago

Actually it was very much a legal thing. For example i can point to GEM that had to have its windows glued down because of this. See GEM 1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GEM_(desktop_environment)#/media/File:Gem_11_Desktop.png https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GEM_(desktop_environment)#/med... vs GEM2 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GEM_(desktop_environment)#/media/File:Gem20about.png https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GEM_(desktop_environment)#/med... Apple sued Digital Research and later Microsoft when they enabled overlapping windows for windows 2.0. Also lol a 286 with 256kb of ram - that is a very very weird combination you would never see in a desktop. Generally early IBM PC compatibles might have just 512KB of ram but around 1985 and later 640KB really became the norm even on 8088 and 8086 based systems. I am not counting stuff that really didn't get anywhere like the PCjr and that thing was much earlier in 1983. 286 based systems once they became more common started a 1mb RAM.

whobre 7mo ago
They didn't even sue DRI, just threatened to sue: https://nemanjatrifunovic.substack.com/p/history-of-the-gem-desktop-environment https://nemanjatrifunovic.substack.com/p/history-of-the-gem-...

charonn0 7mo ago

I don't think regulations are the legal restrictions people are referring to, but rather private lawsuits.

saghm 7mo ago
I also can't imagine calling our current era "hyper-regulation" with respect to software. The Microsoft antitrust case was only 16 years after Windows 1.0, but this year will be the 25th since then.

mmooss 7mo ago

> it’s only from today’s era of hyper-regulation that we might even imagine something like that. How is regulation involved? The OP's idea was that Microsoft feared being sued by other companies over IP. If there is some increase in lawsuits between companies, I'd like to see evidence. Also, my understanding is that there was a lot more regulation in the 1970s and extending into the 1980s, though it was probably declining by then.

undeveloper 7mo ago

i would not describe "today's era" as "hyper-regulation". we're actively removing regulation day over day

userbinator 7mo ago
And replacing it with even more regulations.