OSNews

It shows running applications too.

OK, so then:

1. I click an app in the RISC OS dock, and it opens
2. I click on another app in the dock, and that one opens
3. I click back in the first icon and it switches to the first app (instead of launching another instance)
4. I open an app by some other means, and it appears in the dock as you confirmed
5. I close said app and it disappears from the dock
6. I can add non-running apps to the dock

Are all of those assertions true? Because that is not completely clear from the article or the wikipedia page. I guess I'll have to try the emulator to find out for sure

1. I click an app in the RISC OS dock, and it opens
yes - and an icon for the running app appears on the right hand side of the iconbar.

2. I click on another app in the dock, and that one opens
yes - and its "running" icon appears on the right hand side of the iconbar.

3. I click back in the first icon and it switches to the first app (instead of launching another instance)
Not exactly. It would open a second instance of the application. To access the already running instance, you would use the right-hand icon. some applications would only allow you to run one instance of themselves at a time of course.

4. I open an app by some other means, and it appears in the dock as you confirmed
Yes - as another instance on the right hand side.

5. I close said app and it disappears from the dock
The right hand icon would disappear. The launcher icon you mentioned in (1) would remain.

6. I can add non-running apps to the dock
Yes.

It should also be noted that the iconbar supports full drag and drop (both to and from the bar). For instance, dragging a file to an app icon (either a launcher or a running app) on the bar would launch that app and open the file.

The iconbar was one of the huge strengths of RISC OS in my opinion - and it was a lot clearer what each icon weas for than it is on OSX, because of the seperation of left and right - launchers were on the left (disks, applications), and running apps were on the right. The two icons on the far right were always there and were for OS settings.

Test.

FYI, Awn is now at Launchpad: https://launchpad.net/awn/

I must admit that am not sure on the 3.1 version when it comes to the Amiga. I am fairly sure though, and Wikipedia seems to agree with me (not that that says anything but still).

If anyone can give me a conclusive answer on this one I'll be sure to update the article.

Edited 2007-11-18 18:27 UTC

The 'Dock (computing)' article found on WikiPedia and cited in the article by Thom, states that the Dock application had been present since AmigaOS 3.x.

This, however, might be imprecise according to this WikiPedia article on the various AmigaOS versions, which seems to suggest that the Dock application wasn't added until AmigaOS 3.9.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AmigaOS_versions#AmigaOS_3.5.2C_3.9

"Only late on as a third party addon. You might have been thiking of 3.5, 3.9 or even possibly 4.0."
Not quite, you add it since at least 1991 since ToolManager advent.

Sorry if it seems like an attack, but I have something to say on virtually every point you bring up

Something to keep in mind about the notoriously awful clippy, is that it was the implementation, not the idea that blew.

First off, there was a 10 second animation before and after EVERY event. That is an eternity when it comes to UI elements. Secondly, it was a large floating element that was constantly obscuring some element you wanted to access. Thirdly, it was next to impossible to get rid of, every time you thought you did, it just came back.

All that being said, a contextual help area that is constantly being updated based on what the user is doing is a fantastic idea. The horrible implementation in Office has unfortunately soured people to it. If someone could come with an implementation similar to tooltips (there when you want it, invisible if you dont need it), IMHO it could be a fantastic way of doing inline help.



The problem with hiding the dock (or panels of any sort on other operating systems) is that the trigger area for showing it is WAY to large. If (for example), the trigger was in the lower left hand corner, and as soon as your mouse hit it, the dock would expand out, anchored from the left side of the screen, you would get the desired functionality, while very rarely triggering it accidentally. When the bottom five pixels of the entire monitor triggers the show operation, you will trigger it accidentally far more often then on purpose.

As for it taking space, as can be seen from the Fitts' Law article, the larger the hit area, the easier it is to aquire the target. 4x4 icons may be really pro, but it is exponentially easier to hit 16x16. It really comes down to a tradeoff between work area chewed up, and difficulty in hitting the target. I am a big fan of the quicklaunch in windows (I hate, hate, hate the start menu, and always have), but even with that I will semi-regularily launch the wrong app by mistake, due to the small size of the icons.

All that being said, a contextual help area that is constantly being updated based on what the user is doing is a fantastic idea. The horrible implementation in Office has unfortunately soured people to it. If someone could come with an implementation similar to tooltips (there when you want it, invisible if you dont need it), IMHO it could be a fantastic way of doing inline help.

Newer versions of Word, most versions of WordPerfect since 8 or 9, and a few KDE apps do this. They put a ~2" column along one side of the screen (right for Word, left for WordPerfect). This area is used for displaying contect-sensitive help links, useful hints, and similar stuff. On low-resolution setups (< 1024x768) it's more annoying than anything as it takes up ~ 33% of the horizontal screen space. But on higher resolution setups, it's not that bad.

The WordPerfect implementation is a lot nicer than the Word implementation. It's actually useful. Especially when it's part of their wizards or perfectexpert projects or whatever they call it.

The problem with hiding the dock (or panels of any sort on other operating systems) is that the trigger area for showing it is WAY to large. If (for example), the trigger was in the lower left hand corner, and as soon as your mouse hit it, the dock would expand out, anchored from the left side of the screen, you would get the desired functionality, while very rarely triggering it accidentally. When the bottom five pixels of the entire monitor triggers the show operation, you will trigger it accidentally far more often then on purpose.

Not sure about GNOME or XFce, but the KDE external taskbar and kpanel can be configured like that. Enable the left or right hide buttons and auto-hide. 3 seconds (or so) after your mouse leaves the panel, it will zip off to the side appearing as thin bar with an arrow down in one corner. Pop the mouse down to that corner and click to bring it back.

Personally, I can't stand the dock concept, and prefer to put a taskbar at the bottom of the screen that only shows running apps. And an app launcher at the top of the screen with just the apps menu, some quick launch shortcuts, the system tray, and clock. Set to auto-hide. Since it's only used to launch apps, it doesn't need to be visible all the time. And since the taskbar only shows running tasks, it doesn't need to be very tall (32px is plenty). It's a beautiful setup in KDE; GNOME and XFce are a little more difficult to get working right, but once it's configured, it works the same.

Separate running apps from non-running shortcuts/repositories/launchers/etc. Only show the info that is needed. Hide everything else until it's needed.

Edit: Why doesn't the quote feature [ q ][ /q ] work on the the v4 setup???

Edited 2007-11-18 22:08 UTC

Well, my comment about MS Clippy help app may not have been a very good one anyway, as it is not so much related to the subject here. My point in mentioning it was only to give some kind of an example about looks vs. real usability. So putting emphasis on aesthetics does not always improve usability.

"4x4 icons may be really pro, but it is exponentially easier to hit 16x16."

Of course you're right about that. And there's absolutely nothing pro about too tiny 4x4 icons IMHO... ;-) Anyway, in Gnome I make my top and bottom panels 21 pixels high (possible with certain fonts like Free Sans) which is plenty enough in order for them to remain both clear to see, easy to use, and narrow enough so that they take minimum amount of space and can contain maximum amount of shortcuts or applets if I prefer to have them there.

"I am a big fan of the quicklaunch in windows (I hate, hate, hate the start menu, and always have)"

But start menus are - for a very good reason - found in almost all desktop environments. You tell that you hate them but fail to explain why? Care to elaborate?

I still wait to see a better way than a handy start menu to show, browse and get access to all the available applications? A start menu - of some sorts - seems like a necessity as far as I can tell. Running commands would be another way to browse, find and open apps - but not very newbie-friendly. The place where the start menu is located or can be opened is not essential. Some window managers have a "start menu" that can be opened by right-clicking the desktop background, but that is still the same start menu, and is also more difficult to reach if the desktop background is hidden under open windows.

Still about docks in general:
Mac OS X dock (and maybe many of its "copies" too) looks really nice. In aesthetics Mac OS X may be a clear winner. But what comes to functionality I prefer the old though maybe a bit dull looking taskbar. Not only does taskbar take much less desktop space but textual shortcuts of the taskbar show much more clearly than mere graphical icons what each shortcut represents. If you have, say, 10 open folders, and you can see only 10 similar looking folder icons side by side on the dock, which is which?

Mac OS X dock has some really nice features, though, like docklings and the availability of extended menus that control applications without making them visible on screen - but that could be implemented with a taskbars too.

Edited 2007-11-18 23:50 UTC

I don't know why he hates it, but here is why I do: there is just so much information in them to easily find the application you are looking for. Especially in Windows, where each installed application puts its entries by default to the Programs root. I have seen such start menus all too often. And if you arrange it to folders (like Games, Utilities, etc), it will take a lot of time to go through the folder structure. Under Linux, it is a bit more sane, but it is much more difficult to edit the menu than in Windows, making it again a bit uncomfortable.

Of course, it is absolutely necessary to have something like that. But for programs I use every day, quicklaunch is much faster and more convenient. That was on Windows, though; on Linux, katapult beats every other solution for me. I do not even have a quick launcher anymore, just alt-space, type the first 2-3 characters, and there is the app I want. Brilliant.

I did not yet try out katapult, but it seems to be a very good app launcher interface. For people who know what they are looking for (know the name of the app), that is.

On the other hand, give a Windows user (or a complete newbie) the task of burning some data on a CD with a KDE desktop. What does he do? Right: Launch the "start" menue, look for "archiving" or "CD/DVD", or maybe even "multimedia", all sane places where you could find a CD burning application. It will take him some time, but he will be able to complete the task without having to ask for help.
But set him in front of katapult, and he will try to type "CD", "DVD", "Nero", ... . none of which will bring him closer to "k3b". Or did I miss some ability of katapult there?

I dont have a problem with the start menu as sort of an installed software directory, but I don't like it as a main application launcher. On OSX i used quicksilver (now i use spotlight), on linux I use an embedded run dialog (which has been replaced by deskbar in gnome which I don't like at all), and on windows it always bugged me that there was nothing similar (until WDS on Vista).

Currently, I do all my work on vista. I have 7 shortcuts in the quicklaunch that I use several times daily. These require one click.

I have 20 items "pinned" to the start menu (or panel, I guess you would call it now). These are apps I use semi-regularly. It consists of the Office apps, some adobe apps, terminal, powershell, Safari and Opera (for website testing), torrent software, IM software, etc. These take me two clicks. Usually I will use several, but not all of these every day.

So far so good, but what about the hundred or so small apps I use infrequently? Stuff like regedit, defrag software, server config utils, backup software, dvd authoring software, calculator, virtualization software, burning software, etc. That is what most people use the start menu for. These I will use a few of every day, but always different, and not frequently enough to put it in an easy access location.

Start menu requires up to four clicks with a lot of sifting through folder names to get to what I want. Considering the size of the items in the list, the amount of items there are, and the bad organization (ESPECIALLY in windows), it is significantly more of a pain to find what I want. Some people just litter their desktop with hundreds of launchers, so they can quickly find what they need. This is a symptom of the start menu problem.

Nowadays, the only time I open the start menu (or application menu on linux, or the applications folder on OSX), is to see what is installed on a computer I am unfamiliar with. I know this may seem like nit-picking, but IMHO it is a badly designed UI element and I find it frustrating to work with as long as any alternative exists. The fact that so many exist kind of points that I am not the only one to feel this way.

Sorry for the huge response, I figured I may as well be thorough, as it is a hard thing to articulate

there was plenty of third party type and run apps for windows.

here is one i have used before:
http://www.donationcoder.com/Software/Mouser/findrun/index.html

i think that more recent office versions (or maybe its works versions) have a help bar on the right, so that one can look at work at the same time.

dont know if its context sensitive tho...
(i use openoffice in windows and koffice in linux)

Yes, but that's a taskbar. Not a dock.

thats one blurry line imo...

The dock is more tailored to the Apple UI ideas. In windows/linux, you launch an app and it runs fullscreen. At that point, you want as little OS interference as possible. This effectively embraces the idea that applications are Modes. The taskbar provides a way to switch modes.

The Apple way says that applications arent modes, they are operating system objects. The traditional mac approach is you never run windows fullscreen, you run them as large as they need to be. Transitions between one application and another are more seamless, they all look and act the same, have the same menubar, you can often see the work you are doing in one even if you are in another. It is a concept that is very hard to explain to someone who has never really worked with it, but anyone who grew up on mac classic not only gets it, but finds the fullscreen approach kludgy.

in linux you can work the way you want to, there is no set desktop in linux.

but gnome and kde use a lot of windows elements as that is what most potential users are used to.

btw, did you just call non-apple users stupid without being direct about it?

anyways, i would say both ways have its issues, and its related to using windows the way they do. i wonder if not one should take a step back to the days before apple introduced free-floating windows.

some of those wm's on *nix seems interesting in that regard.

Huh? The Xfce I'm using even has smart window placement, so if I open up 4 terminals simultaneously, not only are they not maximized, but they're automatically placed in separate corners of the screen so all 4 are fully visible at the same time.

Lumping all *nix DE's/WM's together might be a bad idea.

"In windows/linux, you launch an app and it runs fullscreen"

They don't, surely? They launch at whatever size you set them to the last time you opened them. They don't even start out full screen do they? Now you have me scratching my head and trying to remember how they worked in Win 98 - someone I do work for is still running W98 on one machine, and I don't think even there the apps open full screen.

I just fired up a whole bunch in Linux, and not one opened up full screen. What is this about?

Is there any difference between MacOS and other OSs in this respect? The tiling or tabbed window managers of course, in Unix/Linux, but they are a rare breed.

Yes, but that's a taskbar. Not a dock.

Please define the difference between a dock and a taskbar.

Edited 2007-11-18 21:14

If Windows 95 had used a dock instead of a taskbar, it's safe to say we'd all be using Macs today...

Yes, but that's a taskbar. Not a dock.

With the difference being ... ?

They are spelt differently. I would have thought that was obvious ;P

iirc, in windows 3.1 you where supposed to not run the main "window" maximized (but who didnt), as any minimized program would get a icon on the "desktop".

Only when using the default progman.exe shell. Other shells worked differently. My favourite Windows 3.x shell was Xerox' TabWorks shell.

The "desktop" was a tabbed notebook. Down the lefthand side of the screen was a quick launch area where you could put icons for your favourite 10 apps. 80% or so of the screen on the left was the open page, where icons would appear for the apps. The other 20% or so was taken up by the tabs. Click a tab and that page became active (similar to open a program group in progman). Running apps full-screen/maximised was the best way to work with tabworks. And alt+tab to switch between running apps.

Kept things very neat and organised, everything was easy to get to, and it never got in your way. When we migrated to Windows 95, it took a *lot* of getting used to as we had to navigate through a hierarchical menu to find our apps instead of just "click the tab, double-click the app". Too bad the Win95 version of TabWorks was so buggy. Guessing it had something to do with the amount of internal linkage between the Windows OS and the explorer.exe shell.

heh, never used windows 3.1 much. it was dos most of the time for me.

but i think you could run progman.exe as a alternate shell on win95 (maybe even 98).

Yes, progman.exe was included in Windows 95. However, it broke a lot of built-in features like the recycle bin and network neighbourhood, as these were hooks into explorer.exe.

You could also run a lot of different shells on Windows 9x (Litestep and Darkstep being the two most popular). But, these also broke things that were hooked directly into explorer.exe.

If MS had properly separated the GUI shell from system services (like in Win3.x), then running alternate shells would have been a much smoother/easier thing to do.

true that, i recall finding a replacement for the quicklaunch area of the windows taskbar. it even came with the posibility to insert a winamp controller.

http://www.truelaunchbar.com/

there is also a free version:

http://www.freelaunchbar.com/

Edited 2007-11-19 03:45 UTC

Regarding your last paragraph. Please take into account that the term "Dock" originates from NeXTSTEP. The docks/wharfs/harbors in fluxbox, openbox, pekwm and so on exist to make use of WindowMaker's dockapps, which became a sort of X11 "applet" standard in the old days. And the whole point of WindowMaker (and AfterStep) was of course to recreate the NeXTSTEP experience, if only at a shallow level. OS X is really the latest version of NeXTSTEP, so to have had a dock before this OS, you need to do much better than 2001, more like 1989. That's two years before Linus released version 0.01 of his kernel, by the way.

Whether something counts as a "Dock" depends on your subjective definition of the term. I don't consider Windows' taskbar with quicklaunch to be the same concept at all, for instance. You're not "docking" anything in there, really. Actually, I even think the changes Apple made to the Dock drifts it somewhat away from what the term describes.

Okay. The term "dock" relating to GUIs probably originated with NeXTSTEP, but "a rose by any other name..."

Thank you for reminding me of the term "harbor" -- I was racking my brain earlier, trying to remember it.

Yes. Many of the *nix WMs that had "docks" after 1989 were emulating NeXTSTEP.

However, if "docking" an active application means having its icon appear along one edge of the screen, you need to do much better than 1989, more like 1985. Windows 1.01 had this capability then. That's four years before NeXTSTEP's dock was released (according to your post).

In an earlier post, I made the same statement as you regarding the subjectivity of "dock" definitions.

Don't know "quicklaunch," but I don't see much functional differences between task-bars and docks.

As mentioned earlier, Apple did some changes to the Dock. Today, the definition seems to be; an icon bar where the same icons are used both to show running apps and to launch them.

Traditional taskbars don't fit this description. So there is at least one difference right there. All the choices of ways to launch and/or monitor applications share some similarities. It can therefore be hard to distinguish them, and maybe there's no real need to, but we humans tend to come up with words to distinguish similar but slightly different concepts.

However, if "docking" an active application means having its icon appear along one edge of the screen...

Well, in NeXTSTEP, nothing appeared in the Dock at all. You had to drag it there to dock it. See my post further down for a screenshot and some more comments on this.

By "quicklaunch" I meant the Quick Launch toolbar.

Today, the definition seems to be; an icon bar where the same icons are used both to show running apps and to launch them.

You have just described the RISC OS Icon Bar, from 1987 -- preceding NeXTSTEP by two years.


Traditional taskbars don't fit this description. So there is at least one difference right there.

My experience is that Windows 95 and Windows 98 fit this description -- I could drag application icons to the taskbar and if an application was running a rectangle with an icon and the applicatin's title would appear. The Gnome and KDE taskbars exhibit the same behaviour.


Well, in NeXTSTEP, nothing appeared in the Dock at all. You had to drag it there to dock it.

Is it an advantage to lack an indicator for an active application that one forgot to drag to the dock?


By "quicklaunch" I meant the Quick Launch toolbar.

Not familiar with the Quick Launch toolbar.

Edited 2007-11-19 09:47

Pardon? no one argues that Steve (personally) or Apple invented it - what they did do well is the popularisation of the said technology.

Take a look at Japanese electronic companies like Sony; very few of the ideas that came out from Sony in the early years were as a by-product of in house R&D.

LCD's for example, was an American invention, it was the fact that it took until the 1980s when american companies finally realised the link between R&D, competitive advantage and producing products - where they finally protected the technology they developed.

Nothing today is original; the vast majority of it has already been conceptualised years ago - perpendicular recording which has finally being used in hard disks today was developed over 40 years ago - for instance.

Lets not try to start a turf war over who invested who - the question should be who implemented the best - that is, reducing the number of down sides.

no one argues that Steve (personally) or Apple invented it

You're kidding, right?

In spite of seeing proof after proof over the years on this forum and elsewhere, the Mac fanboys would not accept that Jobs/Apple did not invent the dock/task-bar. Many still won't accept that fact even after seeing the proof in this article.

Mac fanboy denial is a powerful force. There is someone who just posted a couple of messages on this thread who evidently can't accept that the dock did not originate at Apple. This poster is delving into minute and rather arbitrary behavioral differences between launchers, task-bars and docks, apparently in an effort to show that the Apple dock is distinctly different than the non-Apple versions, and, thereby, bolster the idea that Apple invented the "true" dock.

Even this OSNews dock article anticipates Mac fanboy resistance, taking a roundabout, sort of apologetic path before finally declaring in the sixth paragraph, "... the fact remains that the first public appearance of the dock was the Iconbar in Arthur. Credit where it is due, please."

(However, the first dock/task-bar actually appeared in Windows 1.01, two years before Arthur.)

By the way, do you know "Steve" personally?!!


what they did do well is the popularisation of the said technology.

Once a person has finally accepted that Jobs/Apple did not invent an item, nothing in the Universe can stop that person from saying, "... well, Steve made it popular!"

First of all, just saying that Jobs/Apple "made popular" or "introduced" something doesn't make it a hard fact. Please see this response to someone's claim that Apple "introduced" free-floating, overlapping, application windows: http://osnews.com/permalink.php?news_id=18941&comment_id=285052

Also, making something popular is a dubious achievement. Perhaps we should start a televised awards show for hucksterism -- I wonder who will win this year's "Huckie" for "largest reality distortion field."

The inventor is the one who should get the credit and accolades.


LCD's for example, was an American invention, it was the fact that it took until the 1980s when american companies finally realised the link between R&D, competitive advantage and producing products - where they finally protected the technology they developed.

Not sure what you mean here, but I think that it was long before the 1980s when American companies realized the importance of R&D, "competitive advantage" and production.



Nothing today is original; the vast majority of it has already been conceptualized years ago

An optimistic view.

A famous myth has Charles H. Duell, the U.S. Commissioner of Patents in 1899, saying, "Everything that can be invented has been invented." Although he did not really make the statement, surely, a lot of people have held that sentiment before and after that fictional moment. It is a good thing that the sentiment also has never proved to be true.


Lets not try to start a turf war over who invested who - the question should be who implemented the best

Okay. If who "best implemented" or "popularized" an invention is more important to you than who invented an item, then you won't mind if I reiterate three facts proven earlier in this article and thread:
- Jobs/Apple did not invent the dock;
- Jobs/Apple did not invent free-floating, overlapping application windows;
- and, Jobs/Apple did not invent the scrollbar.

Edited 2007-11-19 21:48

Before we start, your post score was at 0 - I 've added a point onto it by virtue of the fact that I don't like seeing discussion and debate killed because of the 'tyranny of the masses'. I would sooner see your unpopular post and allow me to dissect it than have it buried by those who take a militant attitude to their platform.

1) Don't confuse the ranting of a few fanboys for the vast majority of Mac people who know their computer history. To claim that 'Steve invented the GUI' is as stupid as claiming that 'without Microsoft, there would be no PC revolution".

No one owes Steve Jobs or Bill Gates (or their companies) anything; they aren't prophets, they aren't special beings or organisations whom, if they suddenly went, all innovation would cease to exist. They're merely companies filled with humans using their knowledge to create things; if those specific companies didn't exist, others would pop up.

2) Learn English, I put personally in the bracket as to infer that he personally didn't sit in a lab and create it. English isn't a difficult language, please spend time learning it before butchering it or worse, asking stupid questions.

3) There are loads of things which have been invented and never attributed to the original person; take Kellogg's cereal for example - no one ever demands that John Harvey Kellogg should be venerated - its always his brother which has the kudos for creating the Kellogg's we know today.

There is no use pointing out who created it if you don't acknowledge who put the money, marketing and 'soft capital' behind it to turn it from an idea on the drawing board into a usable and marketable product.

4) I don't know where you history come from but the Europeans have a had a heck of alot greater success internationally when it comes to commercialising consumer products. Most things in the US which people rant on about never make it outside the boarders.

Heck, there have been studies after studies regarding Europe vs. America in regards to consumer products - ignore them if you want and keep living in the deluded idea of the 'star spangled banner'.

5) Name one product out there that is completely and new an innovative - that is, created in a clean room without the input of any existing ideas or technology?

Everything today is built off the ideas of years ago; its the old story of 'on the shoulders of giants we stand'.

6) You have major English issues; learn the difference between implementation and popularisation - the two are very different. Creation, implementation and popularisation can occur completely separate from each other.

Before we start, your post score was at 0 - I 've added a point onto it

Okay. I've added a point to your post.


Don't confuse the ranting of a few fanboys for the vast majority of Mac people who know their computer history.

Well, unless a few fanboys are posting under numerous usernames, a lot of them out are out there posting wildly and ignoring rationality.


To claim that 'Steve invented the GUI' is as stupid as claiming that 'without Microsoft, there would be no PC revolution".

I agree that both claims are stupid. However, there are two important distinctions between the claims:
- (1) one claim refers to invention, which can have hard meaning and a definite, unique value, while the other claim involves the acts of "popularization" and "introducing a product," which are not as unique as invention, and which are rather nebulous, conceptually, with suspect value;
- (2) one claim is definitely not true, while the other (according to the loose and dubious notions of "popularization" and "introducing") could be interpreted to have some merit.


Learn English, I put personally in the bracket as to infer that he personally didn't sit in a lab and create it. English isn't a difficult language, please spend time learning it before butchering it or worse, asking stupid questions.

Sorry. I should have added "/sarcasm."

One should probably not refer to Steve Jobs as "Steve" unless one knows him personally (or unless one is ridiculing him or his followers). It is sort of unbecoming. As you said, "Steve Jobs and Bill Gates... are merely companies," and they are out to get your money. Referring to Mr. Jobs as "Steve" suggests a delusion that he is one's altruistic, "good buddy." So, I placed the quotation marks around Mr. Jobs' first name to denote this deluded familiarity.


There are loads of things which have been invented and never attributed to the original person; take Kellogg's cereal for example - no one ever demands that John Harvey Kellogg should be venerated - its always his brother which has the kudos for creating the Kellogg's we know today.

If John Harvey Kellogg single-handedly invented breakfast cereal, then he should get the credit for it, not his brother.


There is no use pointing out who created it if you don't acknowledge who put the money, marketing and 'soft capital' behind it to turn it from an idea on the drawing board into a usable and marketable product.

As an inventor and a designer, this view is rather disturbing, especially the notion that investors and marketing people make an invention "a usable and marketable product."

There are exponentially more investors, salesmen, marketeers and hucksters than there are people with unique ideas. Business people are interchangeable, inventors are not.

In other words, an invention can exist (and be successful) without business people, but no one can have a product without the inventor.

The inventor is more important than the business, marketing and sales people.


I don't know where you history come from but the Europeans have a had a heck of alot greater success internationally when it comes to commercialising consumer products. Most things in the US which people rant on about never make it outside the boarders.

Yes. I hate it when everyone rants about US-only products, such as: Ipods, Iphones, Mac Books. etc... /sarcasm

Seriously, I am not sure why you are addressing this issue -- did someone make a statement about US products versus non-US products? Certainly, the consumer market is much bigger outside of the US.


Name one product out there that is completely and new an innovative - that is, created in a clean room without the input of any existing ideas or technology? Everything today is built off the ideas of years ago...

I guess a lot of non-inventors tend to think that invention is always an obvious progression, because, after the product has been released, it is easy to look back and understand the steps in the invention's development. They do not comprehend the depth of the challenges faced by an inventor, engineer or designer when they have to come up with something that performs a certain task, while staring at a blank sheet of paper (or a blank screen). Nor do they realize that the significant "Eureka" moments often occur unprompted, and involve innovation that has nothing to do with one's current project.

Non-inventors often seem to think that innovation is classified into only two categories -- "completely new/unique" and "not completely new/unique." However, the uniqueness of innovation is less "black & white" than this notion and is more of matter of degree, on a scale between the two extremes of very obvious and very unique.

Also, non-inventors seem to have trouble discerning a invention's position on this scale. For instance, not much ever got mentioned about the Mac Trashcan, which sits near the top of the innovation scale, as it was completely unique and innovative, but the Iphone was declared "Invention Of The Year" by Time Magazine, and it actually sits near the bottom of the scale, being completely obvious and derivative.

By the way, the Mac Trashcan is probably the only Apple-originated item that is unique enough to be even close to the top of the innovation scale.

You asked me to name one product that is completely new and innovative, and I already have with the Mac Trashcan. Here are a few more off the top of my head: the Light Field digital lens http://www.refocusimaging.com/ ; the Weedeater; the Segway; the OPT water power buoy http://www.oceanpowertechnologies.com/index.htm ; the Hover Copter toy; the Air Car engine http://www.theaircar.com/ ; etc. There are a few more that I could name and undoubtedly zillions more of which I am ignorant.


You have major English issues; learn the difference between implementation and popularisation - the two are very different. Creation, implementation and popularisation can occur completely separate from each other.

I did use "implementation" and "popularization" as separate words. However, in Jobs/Apple debunking discussions, fanboys tend to lump the two acts into the single category of worship-worthy achievements.

Edited 2007-11-20 21:54

"The task-bar on Windows 95 and on Windows 98 had the same basic function as the OSX dock, and both Windows OSs were used by millions."

Not at all! You are missing the entire point. There are:
1. Launchers
2. Task bars
2. Docks

And they are all different concepts. In windows you have a "quick launch" in addition to the taskbar and that allows you to launch things, but the task bar itself only allows switching between apps. Also, the quick launch bar in Windows behaves in a completely different way than a Dock, in that clicking an icon launches an app but clicking it again launches another instance of the same app, whereas on a dock it *switches* to that app if there is an already running instance.

So:
- In a launcher, clicking an app icon opens an instance
- In a task bar, only running apps appear and clicking on a button switches to the selected app
- In a Dock, clicking an app icon switches to the selected app OR launches it if it isn't already running.

Where would you put Kicker, in that it has a quick launch area, a taskbar area, can hold icons for programs, has a systray area, has a clock, has a trash can, and can take a hold shwack of other plugins including things like a desktop switcher.

i think there is a algorithm that tries to size the image so that scroll bars go away or something, and goes full screen if it happens to hit that size and still not getting rid of them bars.

but thats just me guessing.

as for full screen or not, that depends.

i usually run file manager, im and audio non-full screen, office apps, mail and browser full screen, and videos either taking over the screen or in a window resized to fit the video.

Edited 2007-11-19 03:31 UTC