5 comments

  • CanopyCoder2 hours 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.<p>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).
    • giobox2 hours ago
      &gt; 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.<p>While it&#x27;s demonstrated to be likely incorrect here, it&#x27;s not a wild theory. Apple and Microsoft spent a lot of time in court over the &quot;Look and Feel&quot; cases regarding the windowing UI Apple felt Microsoft had stolen. The lawsuit was first filed in &#x27;88 and was widely reported on in tech and mainstream press etc, dragging on throughout the 90s.<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Apple_Computer,_Inc._v._Microsoft_Corp" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Apple_Computer,_Inc._v._Micros...</a>.
      • parl_match1 hour ago
        Yeah.<p>&gt; 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.<p>Normally I&#x27;d agree with a statement like this. Except this is a very specific case.
      • plorkyeran1 hour 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.
    • blkhawk15 minutes 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 <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;GEM_(desktop_environment)#&#x2F;media&#x2F;File:Gem_11_Desktop.png" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;GEM_(desktop_environment)#&#x2F;med...</a> vs GEM2 <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;GEM_(desktop_environment)#&#x2F;media&#x2F;File:Gem20about.png" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;GEM_(desktop_environment)#&#x2F;med...</a><p>Apple sued Digital Research and later Microsoft when they enabled overlapping windows for windows 2.0.<p>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&#x27;t get anywhere like the PCjr and that thing was much earlier in 1983.<p>286 based systems once they became more common started a 1mb RAM.
    • jmclnx2 hours ago
      &gt; Most likely it was a deliberate technical limitation<p>At the time I remember reading that was kind of the issue. I thought the article said something like &quot;when Gates saw the Xerox machine, the display had no overlapping windows&quot;. So M&#x2F;S cloned it as he saw it.<p>Once M&#x2F;S W1.0 was developed he saw the demo again and was surprised the windows overlapped. So they rushed 2.0 to fix it.<p>But funny, with all people on Linux using tiling window managers these days, it seems Windows 1.0 was ahead of its time :)
      • avadodin20 minutes ago
        They are a bit out of fashion these days.<p>The main use-case was multiplexing terminals and, after tmux provided a solution that was usable by normal users, it seduced people away.<p>Also, mouse-first tiling was introduced on Windows so nowadays it is almost universal to have a degree of tiling.<p>They are nice for terminals and browsing properly-written web pages but for anything with an aspect ratio or a fixed size they are clumsy.<p>Modern tiling-wms often have a floating mode so the distinction is more keyboard-wm vs mouse-wm.
      • fsckboy25 minutes ago
        &gt;<i>&quot;when Gates saw the Xerox machine, the display had no overlapping windows&quot;. So M&#x2F;S cloned it as he saw it. Once M&#x2F;S W1.0 was developed he saw the demo again and was surprised the windows overlapped.</i><p>Microsoft had Apple Lisa&#x27;s in-house, and Charles Simonyi in person direct from Xerox PARC, and worked on pre-release Macintoshes in coordination with Apple to develop Microsoft Word for the Mac, all well in advance of any MSWindows development. There is no way the story is as simple as the above.
      • Affric1 hour 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.<p>And tiling still largely doesn&#x27;t work with small windows.
      • lovich32 minutes ago
        You can tile windows in Windows as well with the windows key+ arrow buttons.<p>The default is just left, right, and top, bottom but if you install Power Toys and use Fancy Zones you can customize the zones <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;learn.microsoft.com&#x2F;en-us&#x2F;windows&#x2F;powertoys&#x2F;fancyzones" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;learn.microsoft.com&#x2F;en-us&#x2F;windows&#x2F;powertoys&#x2F;fancyzon...</a>.<p>There’s also Crop and Lock which can help you cut out extraneous parts of certain windows<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;learn.microsoft.com&#x2F;en-us&#x2F;windows&#x2F;powertoys&#x2F;crop-and-lock" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;learn.microsoft.com&#x2F;en-us&#x2F;windows&#x2F;powertoys&#x2F;crop-and...</a>
    • KellyCriterion1 hour ago
      But hey, for 320x200 (8b) &#x2F; 640x400 (4b) you had a linear framebuffer early on, before VESA&amp;Co came along :-D<p>(this was around IRQ13, IIRC,right?)
  • zabzonk1 hour ago
    Perhaps aesthetic - both Windows 1.0 and 2.0 were (to me at least) very ugly. Things got a bit better with Windows 3.0 and 3.1 (and easier to program) but it wasn&#x27;t really until Windows 95 that the whole thing came together. One thing you have to give Microsoft (at least back then) is that they did keep trying. And, speaking as a Windows developer, their documentation was very good.
  • contextfree1 hour ago
    As far as I&#x27;ve figured out the answer is that some people involved (the ex-PARC Scott McGregor and Charles Simonyi iirc) genuinely thought tiling was better, while others (Bill Gates?) disagreed but went along with it to avoid lawsuits.
    • somat1 hour ago
      I think stacking windows looks better, makes for a cool screenshot when trying to sell the thing. But tiling windows are more ergonomic for actually using the infernal machine.<p>For me the revelation was that I have never said &quot;Oh boy I sure am glad this window partially overlaps this other window&quot; I either want one full screen windows or a few windows side by side. Why do I have to handle this myself? and went to the dark side, a tiling window manager. To the point that it really chafes now when I use stacking windows, It feels like I spend most of the time shuffling windows around.<p>To ease the overlapping window pain many linux window managers have a feature where the focused window does not have to be the top window and this makes things a lot better, you can be looking at the top window and typing&#x2F;clicking on the partially obscured bottom window.
      • kalterdev18 minutes ago
        The primary value of overlapping windows is spacial memory: you remember where a given window is positioned on a 2D surface. The moment I grasped this I had the “oh boy I sure am glad this window partially overlaps this other window.”<p>(At one moment, I used to work on a single desktop with around 20 windows, no dock, just windows, on my 14in MacBook with 125% DPI. Too much but possible. Now I keep only 6-7 windows.)<p>This is not to say that dynamic window management is worse. Far from it. But it excels at this: dynamic, rapidly changing environments, where at almost any given moment something is either opening or closing. This is usually the case with specialized programs like web browsers or IDE, but not with the main system WM.<p>The main problem is that overlapping windows and automatic window management are incompatible. The former assumes that user sets the dimensions and is always right, which makes the latter powerless to follow any meaningful algorithm. To give an example, if you manage your windows with a dock and “maximize” button, they’d break overlapping patterns.<p>&gt; I either want one full screen windows or a few windows side by side.<p>You’re not wrong to work like this but it may be a byproduct of not fully internalizing the overlapping windows concept.
      • agumonkey1 minute ago
        Focus management is such a tricky beast.
      • layer823 minutes ago
        Most of the time, I want the active application window in the middle of the screen, but not necessarily filling the whole screen or the whole height, and also not necessarily centered. The window position and size depends on its contents, what sidebars it has, and so on. This inherently leads to overlapping windows. I use a tool that automatically moves and resizes windows to the application-specific desired position, while also having the ability to arrange a split-screen view using keyboard shortcuts when needed.
      • hedgehog28 minutes ago
        To be fair, in the era when resolutions like 512x342 or 640x480 were common overlapped windows were quite useful.
    • MarsIronPI1 hour ago
      As a tiling window manager user, I think I agree! :D
  • blacksmith_tb22 minutes ago
    Overlapping was hard, it was one of the core parts of the original Macintosh OS, courtesy of Bill Atkinson[1].<p>1: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.folklore.org&#x2F;I_Still_Remember_Regions.html" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.folklore.org&#x2F;I_Still_Remember_Regions.html</a>
  • eschaton1 hour ago
    “Barbarians Led by Bill Gates” is required reading on the matter.