It hasn't been that long since the only windowing system widely used by PCs was that on the Macintosh. Today there are more windowing systems than you can shake a light pen at, and you can bet that there'll be a lot more before we're through with them. To give you an idea of what I mean, consider that a few months ago the Open Software Foundation (OSF, the group formed to counter AT&T and Sun's attempt at Unix standardization) asked software developers to submit windowing systems for the user interface of the OSF's upcoming Unix implementation. When 39 windowing systems were submitted for consideration, even the OSF folks were a little surprised.
With this backdrop, this month we're examining a few of those windowing systems, focusing on Presentation Manager, Microsoft Windows, and X Windows. And because of the growing importance of windowing systems, we'll continue this examination over the coming months by looking at interfaces (the "Rooms" interface from Xerox PARC and more on X Windows and MS Windows) and windowing tools.
There's no question that a consistent user interface makes life easier for users if application development rules are set and, more importantly, if developers adhere to those rules. That's one thing I like about the Macintosh. Because Apple laid down some pretty clear interface rules early on, most Mac applications look more or less the same and, when you come face-to-face with a new program, you can get started quickly, relative to most PC applications anyway.
It remains to be seen how or if windowing systems will make life easier for programmers. What you can expect to see, however, is the continued emergence of new cross-platform development tools like the XVT Toolkit (reviewed by Margaret Johnson in the issue) and Glockenspiel's CommonView (to be promoted by Microsoft). These tools let you write common code, while the toolkit takes care of system specific necessities at compile time--the idea being that your application can run under a variety of windowing systems (PM, Windows, Macintosh, X Windows, or whatever) without any extra coding on your part.
Incidentally, as Kee Hinckley points out in this issue, the decision reached by the OSF wasn't for a single windowing system, but instead for an amalgamation consisting of Microsoft's Presentation Manager, HP's 3-D technology (as present in NewWave), and DEC's X Windows Toolkit. This is particularly interesting since, with Presentation Manager, it will be possible for users to eventually see a consistent graphical interface across dissimilar hardware platforms. With Microsoft reportedly developing a non-OSF Unix version of PM, the day when diverse systems appear alike comes a little closer.
Every now and then a little ethical tune-up seems to be in order. Granted, Mike Swaine has for years been a self-appointed watchdog of journalistic ethics, pointing out foibles whenever they come to his attention and, a few years ago, Phil Lemmons gave a discourse on computer journalism and ethics in an editorial in Byte. But it seems time for another reminder.
What brought this to mind was a message that recently crossed my desk whereby a prominent public relations firm said it was discontinuing its policy of paying members of the computer press a $1,000 finder fee for putting the PR firm in contact with companies that eventually become clients. Now there are many fine folks in the PR business; they have a tough job, and the good ones work hard. (I know because I talk to some of them just about every day). And, for that matter, the press has an equally tough job. (At least that's what I keep telling my boss.) Even though the two professions must endure a symbiotic relationship, it is important to remember that a PR agency's allegiance is to the client while a journalist's responsibility is to you, the reader. Working together is one thing, but money changing hands goes beyond the bounds of decency. Shame on the those who offered the money, but more shame on those who took it. The only good thing about the whole muddle is that it has ended.
To be fair, I asked myself if my reaction was sour grapes because I didn't find out about this opportunity until after it ended. Maybe so. Perhaps if I'd received one of those checks just before Christmas, I'd be more understanding...but no, it's wrong and no amount of justification can make it right.
If you'll remember, last month we changed what the outside of the magazine looked like when we introduced our new DDJlogo. This month we've extended that redesign into the interior. Redesigning a magazine isn't an endeavor that is undertaken simply for the sake of change. There are practical reasons too, the most important being that the redesign has enabled us to get more text on the same size page without shrinking the size of the type. This in turn means more articles and more program listings for you.
Copyright © 1989, Dr. Dobb's Journal