A lot of people seem to have this idea that Windows Vista looks an awful lot like the MacOS. LifeHacker.com sets some screenshots side-by-side for comparison, and even though they refrain from judgement (“We’re just saying”), I do wish to make a few sidenotes about this issue. Read more for a mini-article on the issue.
Does Windows Vista indeed look a lot like the MacOS? At first sight, you’d say yes. Vista’s Gadgets bear a striking resemblance to Apple’s widgets, for instance. However, you have to go back in time, to 2003 to be precise, to realise that, yes, Microsoft actually got there first, 2 years before Tiger. What?
Yes. In 2003, I reviewed, for OSNews, the then-latest build of Windows Longhorn– build 4051. Check the first screenshot on that page. What do you see? Exactly, a sidebar with gadgets. Yes, even back then, in 2003, Microsoft already had the basic concept of its gadgets in place. You could add plug-ins (they were not yet called gadgets in 2003), such as clocks, recycle bins, slideshows, and so on. The number of plug-ins was limited, of course, but the concept was there. The only thing Microsoft added lately, is the option to also place these plugins outside of the sidebar. But for the rest– no, Microsoft did not copy this from Apple’s Dashboard. If anything, it is the other way around.
Or is it? Not really; as we all know, Apple’s Dashboard is a direct and blatant copy of Konfabulator, which in return is based on Apple’s own ‘Desk Accessories‘ it introduced with the original Macintosh in 1984, in order to create a sense of multitasking (the MacOS back then lacked multitasking, and hence these Desk Accessories weren’t programs, but drivers).
The next programs LifeHacker.com compares are Finder and Explorer. It might be just me, but I don’t see how Explorer is copying off of Finder; there are only so many ways you can lay out the elements in a file manager. Nautilus (in browser mode), Konqueror, Explorer, Finder, Tracker; they all have more or less the same basic layout, so why is Vista’s Explorer any more a copy of Finder than it is of Nautilus?
The same actually goes for the comparison made between iCal and Windows Calendar; besides the obvious similarities (I mean, a monthly calendar is a monthly calendar) the differences are clearly visible; Microsoft has a bar underneath the menubar which contains all the shortcuts to do calendary-things, while iCal has these buttons on the bottom (as do all MacOS applications with similar buttons). The other calendar elements (i.e. to-do list) are in different places in both applications (since I’m running Vista on my Inspiron, and Tiger on my Mac, I can compare them side-by-side in real-time).
The search thing is where the article really gets utterly ridiculous. Apart from displaying the results in a list, is there any other way to display instant search results? What does the author expect, that Microsoft displays the results upside down in inverted colours, while the computer’s PC speaker plays the Dutch national anthem?
In conclusion, I find these often-mentioned similarities between MacOS X and Vista to be very, very superficial– at best. Other cases, such as the Gadgets and Widgets issue, are actually the other way around: Microsoft had the basic idea first, after which Apple (coincidentally or not) implemented something very similar to it (after doing a Xerox PARC, again).
As a final note, please let me state that I find copying to be an essential part of, well, just about every industry. Everybody copies off of everybody, it’s the way good ideas are spread. However, sometimes, credit should be given where it’s due, and that’s what inspired me to write this mini article.
–Thom Holwerda
If you would like to see your thoughts or experiences with technology published, please consider writing an article for OSNews.
… story of Microsoft copying Apple’s innovative ideas, they’ve done it since DAY ONE, and they’ll continue to do so, apparently Apple’s ideas and designs are so great MS can’t com-up with anything better, so they copy.
Did you even read the article?
Yeah I read the article. :-p
Let’s not forget that what most people associate with Apple OS (mouse, point-and-click) originated at Xerox PARC. The modern Apple OS is a Unix clone which runs on an Intel processor. Might I ask, what OS was running on Intel first? You have to look at _what_ is being copied. Is it superficial (eye-candy), etc. or is it the design of the OS/platform. If it is the eye-candy, then whoever is doing the copying is getting lazy. If it’s fundamental design things, then the company is about to go under because they’ve run out of ideas.
While it might have originated there the first demos that were shown to Apple were demos.
Many things that really make up the GUI user experience came from apple, like the menu bar, pull-down menus, double-clicking, the whole desktop metaphor, dragging and dropping, click and drag etc.
Apple actually took a raw diamond (Xerox PARCs ideas) and made it into a shiny little sucker. And they SHIPPED.
The menu bar is wasted real estate if you have a decent set of context sensitive menus. I was sorry when so many X window managers adopted it. Ditto pull down menus.
Double-clicking was an Apple workaround to the lack of a three button mouse. click and drag was definitely around in other window managers before the mac.
Drag and drop, and the desktop metaphor are definitely apple adds. The desktop metaphor has outlived its usefulness, but is so ubiquitous that it’s probably not going anywhere — especially with the X based window managers Gnome and KDE slavishly copying the windows version of it.
Xerox did ship by the way. The handful of products that were based on the PARC work did poorly in the market place, but they shipped.
A better analogy than diamond-in-the rough is Newton’s comment about standing on the shoulders of giants. Each generation added a bit more to what the previous had done and this goes on to this day.
Let me add this very important thing: Sometimes there is not copying that happens, but simply, natural evolution of technology.
Be engineer Jason Sams (today at nVidia), had a GL accelerated desktop in his BeOS lab in 1999. Does this mean that OSX stole its QuartzExtreme idea from an unreleased BeOS? The answer is no. It simply was a natural evolution of ideas and hardware coming together to a more mature state.
So while some times companies copy each other, this is not always the case, even if some people think it is a blatant copy of something else. Sometimes, it just makes sense to release a certain feature at this point in time and not before or after.
Eugenia, I know it’s not ALWAYS about copying, but it does seem strange that Apple comes out with a new or different way of doing something and suddenly MS has the same idea. That seems kinda ‘fishy’ to me.
As far as the evolution of technology, I agree there, afterall there are only so many things that can be done on a 2-D desktop.
That sums it up well.
I don’t get why some mac users are so insistent about it. Maybe because Apple tells them it’s true?
I think it’s a sign of insecurity or some sort of superiority complex.
OSX copied Windows. I mean, Windows had it’s own browser shipped with the OS first.
OSX copied Windows. I mean, Windows had protected memory first.
Please, it’s a joke. You can’t and shouldn’t be able to patent an idea or have any sort of ownership of it, but rather the implementation. Who cares if someone happens to implement the same idea, as long as they aren’t trying to copy the implementation. Everyone copies each other, get over it.
—
Edit: I just looked at the screenshot comparisons. They honestly think Vista in those shots look like OSX? HAHAHAHAHA. I’m sorry, but that’s just too funny. Wow.
Finder/Explorer: They look nothing a like.
iCal/WinCal: Again, they hardly look a like. WinCal looks more like Outlook 2003 than iCal.
Search: Is that a joke?
Edited 2006-06-15 17:28
“OSX copied Windows. I mean, Windows had it’s own browser shipped with the OS first.”
Wrong. Unix had it long time before. And Mac OS X was NextStep at this time. So Mac OS X got protected memory long time before windows.
“OSX copied Windows. I mean, Windows had protected memory first. ”
Wrong. The first web navigator and the first web server was developped on NextStep. So Mac OS X got it before Windows.
Try again.
OSX != NextStep, sorry.
I’m talking about a browser developed by the same company, not just a browser.
Geez, went over your head.
Try again.
“OSX != NextStep, sorry. ”
So tell me why Apple bought Next if Mac OS X is not NextStep ? For dropping it and start from scratch ?
quoted from wikipedia.
“Eventually, NeXT’s OS—called OPENSTEP at the time—was selected to form the basis for Apple’s next OS, and Apple purchased NeXT outright[2].”
So tell me why Apple bought Next if Mac OS X is not NextStep ? For dropping it and start from scratch ?
OS X is not Nextstep, it was based off of nextstep.
Using the logic that OS X=NextStep I could claim that Windows XP=VMS and plenty of people would point out that I was indeed wrong.
You mean NeXT != Apple. This argument is just about who gets credit, and really has nothing to do with technology. Nonetheless, if the user above, who was modded down for no reason at all, has his facts right, NeXT had protected memory before the competition did, including Microsoft, so to the question of whether Apple copied the feature from MS or MS copied it from Apple, the answer is neither.
Anyway, if you’re saying in pure logical technicality that OS X is not identical to NeXTSTEP, well, duh. If you’re saying there’s nothing of NeXT in OS X, I’m guessing your knowledge consists of a screenshot. Frameworks, .app packages (and several of the apps themselves), services, objective C, Cocoa, the Mach kernel, multiarchitecture programs, the Dock, column browsing, broad support of network protocols — all straight out of NeXTSTEP. The addition of a BSD kernel and userspace really does not go beyond the NeXTSTEP spec, either. I’m sure OPENSTEP will run on top of any BSD. Even Apple’s single location for every program’s menu bar concept was there in NeXT’s system.
As for the browser, they weren’t copying Microsoft, but rather were forced into it by them. Apple had to create their own browser just for their platform to have a good one. We all know Netscape’s shortcomings. The Mozilla project was quick to dump Classic and slow to work on X. Opera was still pay. IE for Mac hadn’t been officially dumped yet, but it was still full of cobwebs, and they knew it wouldn’t make it all the way to Intel. If not for Microsoft’s aggressive market penetration (to put it nicely) with IE, there probably would have been a lot more third-party offerings doing the job for Apple. That’s one thing that these Who Copied Who debates really seem to miss: sheer force of market conditions that require a company to implement a certain idea on its own for survival and/or dominance (depending on their particular approach.) Some copying is just frivolous or unimaginative, but a lot of it is entirely understandable. MS was late in the game with the GUI and now dominates the desktop market. Apple was late in the game with MP3 and now dominates digital music.
Oh, gotcha. When Apple does something, they aren’t copying, but being forced into it.
Nice.
But again you missed the point of my original comment. It wasn’t to argue about who actually had what, but to illustrate how pointless and shallow it is.
Mosaic was developed for Unix, so because MS had XENIX since early 80′ it looks like they were before Apple.
I dunno if XENIX actually had a GUI or a browser though…
OSX copied Windows. I mean, Windows had it’s own browser shipped with the OS first.
And Windows copied OS/2 (IBM included IBM WebExplorer in OS/2 Warp 3 released in 1994). And I’m sure many others.
OSX copied Windows. I mean, Windows had protected memory first.
Before MacOS did, perhaps. OS/2 had protected memory in 1992, as did Linux, both before the release of Windows NT. For all I know OS/2 1.x had it as well (I’ve never used the 16-bit versions of OS/2).
Yes, I meant before OSX. But that was the point of the post. Just because OSX had it before Windows, doesn’t mean Windows copied OSX.
OSX copied Windows. I mean, Windows had it’s own browser shipped with the OS first.
And Windows copied OS/2 (IBM included IBM WebExplorer in OS/2 Warp 3 released in 1994). And I’m sure many others.
OSX copied Windows. I mean, Windows had protected memory first.
Before MacOS did, perhaps. OS/2 had protected memory in 1992, as did Linux, both before the release of Windows NT. For all I know OS/2 1.x had it as well (I’ve never used the 16-bit versions of OS/2).
ROFL. For you information, OS/2 was co-developed by Microsoft and IBM. Microsoft did not steal anything from OS/2. Futhermore, IBM ripped off some stuff from Microsoft to make Windows-based applications work under OS/2 after both compagnies have parted ways.
I will never understand why some people keep backing Apple…
Edited 2006-06-15 22:22
IBM licensed Windows 3.x from Microsoft to run 16-bit Windows apps in OS/2 after MS stopped co-developing.
OSX copied Windows. I mean, Windows had it’s own browser shipped with the OS first.
And Windows copied OS/2 (IBM included IBM WebExplorer in OS/2 Warp 3 released in 1994). And I’m sure many others.
OSX copied Windows. I mean, Windows had protected memory first.
Before MacOS did, perhaps. OS/2 had protected memory in 1992, as did Linux, both before the release of Windows NT. For all I know OS/2 1.x had it as well (I’ve never used the 16-bit versions of OS/2).
ROFL. For you information, OS/2 was co-developed by Microsoft and IBM. Microsoft did not steal anything from OS/2. Futhermore, IBM ripped off some stuff from Microsoft to make Windows-based applications work under OS/2 after both compagnies have parted ways.
I will never understand why some people keep backing Apple…
The above mentioned post does not say Microsoft ‘stole’ anything from OS/2, it just points out that IBM OS/2 Warp 3.0 (As opposed to Microsoft’s OS/2 1.3 and Windows NT) had a web browser, IBM Web Explorer, included in the installation if you chose to install the TCP/IP part of the OS.
Concerning protected memory, if in fact IBM OS/2 1.3 had it, so did Microsoft OS/2 1.3… Again, it is mentioned that Windows NT did not have protected memory at that point in time… So it is a sound argument.
On the other hand, you might very well explain to us what parts of Windows IBM ripped off to make Windows based applications work under OS/2 after both parties had parted…. Do you mean Open32, the Win32-subset that IBM included in IBM OS/2 Warp 4.0 and later? Open32 is a reverse engineered API aimed at easing the efforts to port Win32 apps to OS/2, much like Winelib or OS/2 Netlabs’ Project Odin.
Microsoft might very well have ‘stolen’ parts of the design for later use in Windows NT, however this is very hard to prove and so I will not be drawn into speculation over that claim…
Edited 2006-06-16 14:22
That is all very nice but when you realise that os-x is next-step then you know that os-x had the first web browser period.
One is available now; the other remains a promise.
hehe, LOL! How true, ya got my vote.
So Windows Vista already had gadgets in 2003. Fine, but how is this different from Mac OS X? Dashboard was not engineered the day that was released…
Blah, all this back and forth over glorified dock apps.
Dashboard was not engineered the day that was released…
You are right, but like MS’s ‘gadgets’, dashboard was an idea taken from konfabulator.
Which in turn, is essentially a spiced up Active Desktop.
Here, cycle complete.
Which is in turn a recycled desk accessories on Mac OS 1, or SysRq Calculator on System/360, AS/400.
Rinse, wash, repeat.
LOL!
Then again, what about the cases where Apple is copying Microsoft? The most famous example would be for fast user switching. Microsoft came up with an easy to use interface for switching users leaving other programs running and then suddenly Apple has the same idea. (Granted, Linux had it before both of the others, just not in an easy to use interface, you had to launch multiple X servers and then use Ctrl+Alt+F[yournum] to switch) up until recently.
Meh.
$ su –
Meh Meh
Tell your average corporate worker to just “sudo” to switch users, and you’ll get blank stare, at best.
Remember, we’re talking about Windows and OS X .. the two OS’s 99.8% of users use on the DESKTOP.
Not servers.
99.8% ??
Hmm.. there are more Linux-on-the-Desktop users than Mac-on-the-Desktop users. So It’s probably closer to 94.8 %
Are you just being off topic or do you want to explain how su – compares to fast user switching? Fast user switching allows someone else to begin using their session while leaving another session entirely uninterrupted. Keeping it to command line, if I have to exit or interrupt a running program in that command line to switch to another user (su), then it is not equivalent to fast user switching. Virtual screens (the ones you access by pressing Ctrl+Alt+F[num] is equivalent to the feature and also works in a Linux GUI, so Linux had it first, but the feature you mention doesn’t compare to Fast User Switching, it compares to the “Run as different user” feature of Windows XP.
Well, technically you could stick the currect active process into the background (ctrl + Z) and then su over.
Are we just being grumpy, or do we not know how to take a joke?
One difference between the companies to point out directly addresses your point.
In his Keynote where FUS was introduced, SJ explicitly pointed out that this was an area that MS got it right and did it first, they just made it a lot nicer.
But in that same keynote, Jobs claimed or at least implied (I don’t remember which) that Apple hasn’t copied anything else from Microsoft. Which is just not true.
The differences are probably better stated as shallow often more than deep. Deep down Windows Vista bears a striking resemblence to OS X in general. The shallow differences are these:
* Vista is being released all at once, hopefully stable and with a low bug count. And hopefully very close to as good as it will be before a major change.
OS X was released as a piece of crap: Slow, buggy, virtually unusable. It was improved in subsequent releases to being a very nice system to use. The main important shift was to using the GPU to composite, and simple getting the dock working right.
* Windows Vista still interacts like Windows. OS X went from acting like a Mac to acting like a Mac’ish Next.
But the similarities are great too:
* Vista will be using compositing and the gpu to draw widgets. So does OS X, woh. And actually, TMK, they’re getting there are similar times: OS X has been compositing for years, but it’s only now drawing widgets on the GPU.
* Both will have a “new” web browser.
* Both had major operating system changes, arguably much much much much more for OS X though.
And there are deep differences as well:
* Vista is supposed to support full scaling, even letting you do things like work with papers on widely varying resolutions without changing the fonts around (one of the most difficult problems with WYSIWIG typesetting).
There are some things I think Microsoft should copy, correctly: Drop the view of all windows where they’re diagonal and you choose their edge and go to something good like expose.
Someone’s going to write WinExpose as soon as the DWM APIs become public (if ever). Or the WindowBlinds people will hack it. This is all possible in Vista, but MS wouldn’t copy that blatantly.
“as we all know, Apple’s Dashboard is a direct and blatant copy of Konfabulator, which in return is based on Apple’s own ‘Desk Accessories’ it introduced with the original Macintosh in 1984.”
…and Konfabulator was built by an ex-Apple GUI guy (woo, go figure)… and we don’t know the ‘real’ story (is this is all about the graphical design NOT the widgets themselves).
“In conclusion, I find these often-mentioned similarities between MacOS X and Vista to be very, very superficial– at best. Other cases, such as the Gadgets and Widgets issue, are actually the other way around: Microsoft had the basic idea first, after which Apple (coincidentally or not) implemented something very similar to it (after doing a Xerox PARC, again).”
So how can you say that the ‘basic idea was Microsoft’s’ when Apple had the ‘idea’ in 1984?? and then to mention PARC… Apple had permission to use that stuff, and besides, Microsoft was there too, I believe with the Steves! They all knew. Yet it was Apple who brought it to the masses in real way. BTW Xerox also was the home to John Warnock (Adobe co-founder).
All UI is evolutionary.
Did Microsoft copy the back button off of Netscape? or more accurately, did Netscape copy the back button off of Mosaic?
I think the important observation is that Microsoft did almost never play the innovating part!
Microsoft has always been successful by imitation, not by innovation. In addition to imitation, Microsoft often succeeded by elimination/restricting choice for the user by providing closed, incompatible products.
Of course, this insight isn’t something new
I suggest you research Exchange 2007, especially OVA.
But don’t let facts get in your way.
Or Office 2007.
Not sure about you. I think the interface for Office 2007 is pretty innovative. Of course, now that it is out, Apple can release a half-baked (read: beta quality) product in a couple of months with a remotely, similar UI, and then we can all go back to saying “Microsoft has always been successful by imitation, not by innovation”.
I think the important observation is that Microsoft did almost never play the innovating part!
Microsoft has always been successful by imitation, not by innovation. In addition to imitation, Microsoft often succeeded by elimination/restricting choice for the user by providing closed, incompatible products.
Of course, this insight isn’t something new
Well Apple is restricting choice for the user by providing closed, incompatible products as well.
The entire point of Linux is that its an imitation of UNIX.
So I guess you can’t win with anyone?
Edited 2006-06-15 20:04
How does it matter who copies whome, I wonder. If MS does a great job, I guess it’ll make a windows joe user’s life more happier/easier after all…
Apple has always been far behind Microsoft since Windows 95. However, things changed when OSX came out.
If you compare Windows and MacOS from 1995 to 2001, you will be able to make your own conclusions.
Thus said, it’s totally stupid to claim that Vista is ripping off OSX. Vista look = XP + Theming. Except the new location of the X button (bad bad) and the new concept of making the menubar below the buttons (bad bad bad), it’s still Windows. Microsoft is just theming it alot because _they think_ kids like that. But in fact, most people hate it. You know, Windows XP + Classic Look (Windows 95) is just perfect. Microsoft did an awesome job at designing widgets 10 years ago and it will last forever. I just hope they will make it easy for us to go back to the classic look in Vista because up to now, the classic look in Vista isn’t the classic look we are used to see.
Don’t hope they do a good job otherwise you’ll be out of a job. The support industry relies on MS doing a bad job
Steve Jobs once quoted Picaso:
“Good artists create; great artists steal.”
“Good artists create; great artists steal.”
I once had somebody tell me that if I had a one in a million idea, nine other people in Los Angeles county had the same idea.
It is quite likely that multiple people came up with the same idea at roughly the same time and their products inevetiably look like they are copying eachother.
Want to know what makes both MS and Apples newer GUI design schemes different from their old ones? Gradients and drop shadows. That’s about it.
Is either MS or Apple innovating at all with their desktop tools? Not really. Who’s better? I’d say it’s about six one way, half dozen the other.
Edited 2006-06-15 19:06
…conceptually there’s no difference. Having a calculator on your desktop that you can get to quickly doesn’t sound like a real ‘innovation’ on anyone’s part. I wrote a QBasic “pseudo-windows for Dos” interface waaay back (like 10 years ago) and even I came up with this. In retrospect, the performance level was quite whimsical, but it got the job done. Do I feel like my idea was ‘infringed’, well maybe a little – yeah. But I’m just glad it’s finally being done and integrated into the system properly. Original ideas are often quite self-evident, some take-off and others just flop. The more useful something is, the more likely it is for someone else to be creating a very similar project.
” I wrote a QBasic “pseudo-windows for Dos” interface waaay back (like 10 years ago) and even I came up with this. In retrospect, the performance level was quite whimsical, but it got the job done. Do I feel like my idea was ‘infringed’, well maybe a little – yeah.”
Except Windows was out longer than 10 years ago, and it required DOS.
Let’s not be silly here.
These software companies have different release schedules. To say one thought of this idea before the other because it releases it in a product sooner is a bit silly and a tad bit naive.
just think about it for a moment.
I suppose we in the Linux community are a 100% original?
Linux looks a lot like Minix
*ducks*
Actually it doesn’t, and I believe a certain duo will testify to that
Since the dawn of time, Microsoft hasn’t had any ideas of it’s own. They have either copied or bought the technology from others. It’a known fact. For those who believe MS is an innovator,perhaps you should read some history. I do agree, MS brought the GUI to the PC, but we are talking about designing an operating system here, not what platform its running on. I’m sure they will buy someone’s idea and then delay it’s release for a few more years.
Since the dawn of time, Microsoft hasn’t had any ideas of it’s own. They have either copied or bought the technology from others. It’a known fact.
Give the devil its due. Microsoft clearly invented the wheel mouse. It also seems they invented tool tips.
They didn’t invent tool tips. Borland came before Microsoft on that one.
evidence? I’ve heard that claimed, but I’ve yet to be able to track down any proof.
Well, in the last half on the 90’es there was a settlement on the issue with Microsoft paying a nice amount to Borland.
And Apple had an equivalent (balloon tips), also predating tool tips in Windows.
Edited 2006-06-15 23:49
The only suit against Microsoft by Borland that I’m familiar with was the one in ’97, and it was over hiring practices, not intellectual property.
I think you’re confusing Microsoft with Logitech and/or Kensington.
http://www.internetnews.com/bus-news/article.php/3322891
I don’t think I am, no.
I could be mistaken, but I thought in an earlier thread you mentioned you have been around operating systems and technology for a long time. You should be aware then that being awarded a patent does not necessarily mean a company innovated something, not with the broken patent system in the United States. It amazes me anyone thinks a link on the internet is authoritative. To show how ludicrous the situation is, just google microsoft and fortran and you will find a timeline indicating microsoft invented fortran. Pretty neat trick, considering I studied fortran 10 years before Microsoft even existed, and fortran was around 20 years before Microsoft, since the 1950’s. This whole discussion is useless anyway, Windows users acuse Mac users of being zealots, yet Windows proponents almost always resort to my dad is bigger than your dad arguments and then wonder why they get the response they do. Rant on The only reason I could see for this article is page hits, it is an infantile exercise in futility. I asked before, around three years ago, why this site is called OS News since they seem to focus more and more on prevalent desktop operating systems and hardly discuss anything revolutionary anymore, Rant off
That’s a nice long rant, but it doesn’t actually say anything on topic.
Let’s slow this down so you can follow it: I pointed to the wheelmouse as an example of Microsoft inovation. I was challenged. I posted a URL that contains pointers to two US patents awarded to Microsoft on the topic. (You can check those patents out yourself, or do government URLs count in your phobia against trusting URLs.)
This makes it clear that Microsoft asserts and the USPTO accepts, that they invented the Wheelmouse and the Tiltwheelmouse.
This is consistent with my memory of the events, as I certainly saw Microsoft wheelmouse long before I ever saw anything similar from another vendor.
This, the courts would say, is prima facia evidence to support my assertion.
That puts the ball back in the court of the individual who claimed I was thinking of Logitech. If my memory is wrong, Microsoft assertion is wrong, and the USPTO’s acceptance of that assertion is wrong, then there must be evidence to support the counterclaim.
You have failed to provide any such evidence, but have simply entered an off-topic rant.
By the way, I’d love to see this timeline you claim with respect to Microsoft and Fortran. It would be good for a laugh. Got a URL?
Now, my rant:
Why yes, you shouldn’t trust everything you read on the internet. Or anywhere. But you can learn how to evaluate what’s there. This is why I provided a pointer to evidence supporting my case. Anyone here can follow it up and judge it for themselves.
I’m sure the people making the Borland and Logitech assertions will be happy to provide the same.
Here is the URL for the Microsoft timeline, check the year 1977. You will see the claim Microsoft developed Fortran, in addition to other computer languages. Enjoy.
dubbleudubbleudubble.thocp.net/companies/microsoft/microsoft_company.h tm
Considering every company in the industry today has stolen thier GUIs and basic ideas from one another in a big incestuous mess for the last 30 years, I would have to say that no one in the computer industry has done any true innovating work, including apple, considering that they got OS X from Next and modified it from there
I think this article is a perfect example of when people have to much freetime. Complete waste of time.
Quite frankly all these screenshots show is..well nothing. Move along folks.
‘iHIWG
“Other cases, such as the Gadgets and Widgets issue, are actually the other way around: Microsoft had the basic idea first”
No, in fact, Microsoft just talks about it first.
On the contrary, Apple never talks about their incoming product.
The fact is we have Tiger today with all this features (widgets, spotlight, etc..) and Microsoft doesn’t.
Edited 2006-06-15 18:31
The fact is we have Tiger today with all this features (widgets, spotlight, etc..) and Microsoft doesn’t.
Oh? So, this Vista thing currently installed on my computer, is just a figment of my imagination? It’s all fake? What? All the builds of Longhorn/Vista I have been testing in the past 3-4 years are all fake? They do not exist?
Duffman, your silly anti-MS antics are getting very old. And boring.
Oh? So, this Vista thing currently installed on my computer, is just a figment of my imagination?
Of course not, but let’s be realistic. Until a product is released, it might as well not exist for 99% of computer users. Saying that a feature exists in some beta is just as weak of an argument as open source advocates saying that a feature exists in CVS.
Until it is released, it means nothing. You don’t even know if it will appear in a release.
Edited 2006-06-15 18:54
lol you compare a beta product with a final version…
And I don’t think you was testing Vista 4 years ago anyway as in 2002, windows XP was just released two months ago.
“Duffman, your silly anti-MS antics are getting very old. And boring.”
Just as all your silly troll news.
Oh? So, this Vista thing currently installed on my computer, is just a figment of my imagination? It’s all fake? What? All the builds of Longhorn/Vista I have been testing in the past 3-4 years are all fake? They do not exist?
——————————————————
Oh, so I can go down to Best Buy and buy Vista? Nope. It’s not in the wild. It ‘exists’, but isn’t available to the public.
Actually there is a public beta available. Oops!
You’d have a negative score if you didn’t sit on your OSN staff high-horse where no one can rate your post.
Seriously, your last sentence is inflammatory, rude, and degrading.
Besides, you’re wrong too. Vista is not a product available to the majority of people for real use today. Tiger is. They’re simply not comparable, and I’m sure that if you suggested mass adoption of the beta’s most Microsoft engineers would slap you
. TMK they still consider the priv-up dialog count to be far too high.
And how were you testing Longhorn in 2003?
And how were you testing Longhorn in 2003?
You did not read the article, did you?
I read every word of your article Thom.
I am sorry for jumping into this series of one-liners but I can’t take it any more.
If you read every word of the article. You must have read this bunch of words
“In 2003, I reviewed, for OSNews, the then-latest build of Windows Longhorn– build 4051.”
Which contains a link to the original review.
http://www.osnews.com/story.php?news_id=5121
I know it does not literally answer your question “how were you testing Longhorn in 2003?” but I guess it does tell you Thom was testing it in 2003, which might be closer to what you had in mind.
Oh ok. Although that was only 2.5 years ago, and not 3-4 which is what people were thinking was exaggerated.
Why talk about Vista and comparing it? It’s beta right and it shows. Untill Vista is release i figure comparing the two OS’s are pointless. By the time Vista comes out Apple will probably be on its 2rd release after Tiger and MS will have to think of something else to steal.
//By the time Vista comes out Apple will probably be on its 2rd release after Tiger and MS will have to think of something else to steal.//
And, as usual, MS will be laughing all the way to the bank, and all the way to 90% desktop marketshare.
Boy, they’re idiots.
http://www.folklore.org/StoryView.pyproject=Macintosh&story=Desk_Or…
I generally agree with Eugenia on the subject. What I’m slightly disappointed is the fact that in the recent 5 years or so we’ve seen a lot of evolution. Really a lot of evolution. And definitely not revolution. While we might be getting near the ultimate perfection in 2d desktop funcionality (some people might be saying otherwise though) I sometimes wonder wether it’s good to invent and refine the wheel every time rather than switch to something completely new. I believe there’s the need of a revolution in computing driven by a new breed of interfaces. We had CPUs, GPUs and now we’re seeing the rise of PPU. I wonder, where’s my IPU?? (Interface Processing Unit) Interface has becoming more and more complex with each iteration, requiring more memory and more horsepower. But it would need much more in order to make a leap forward in terms of usability (The more we go on, the more we’ll need some sort of limited AI). Therefore the need of an IPU.
In a few words (I know maybe I wasn’t very clear at all sorry about that):
1) We need new interfaces in order to deal with the increasing amount of data flows and the millions of files we have on our machines (100GBs is becoming a small Hd these days)
2) These new interfaces should reside over a system that monitors in real time all these files and flows, retaining some sort of “awareness”, let’s say an overall picture.
3) in order to be productive these new interfaces/systems should be able to do simple operations on files by themselves, such as comparing, organizing, sorting very diferent kind of documents.
(one side effect is that file formats should really become transparent to the user)
4) All this excessive use of power (someone might think “waste of power”… it’s just a matter of views) will require a new kind of processors, optimized for simultaneous data manipulation and expert system operations. ( I’m not a Hardware literate, so forgive any eventual mistake)
Of course all of this IMHO.
Edited 2006-06-15 19:00
http://tinyurl.com/3h8kv
http://tinyurl.com/f5x2b
The problem the Mac enthusiast has is, why has the greatest and most innovative and best managed computer company in history only got 2% share? There has to be some explanation for this. It is a bit like the problem of the former Soviet Union: why had the state not withered away, and why did the workers seem better off in West than in East Germany?
The Mac devotee has only a couple of things to cite in explanation which will explain and excuse, and one of the leading ones is Apple as victim. Apple has been the victim of sharp practice by its arch rival MS.
The Mac devotee lives in sort of twilight world in which Apple is Microsoft’s leading competitor, or perhaps its the other way around. MS has never done anything original but has stolen everything from Apple. This is why poor Apple has not succeeded better against MS; it had its hands tied behind its back by its niceness and ethics.
The story, true or false, will continue to make the rounds, just like the story about Macs really being cheaper, lasting longer…and all the other Mac myths.
These are not matters of fact, but artifacts of a social environment which has very little to do with computing in a technical sense, and everything to do with brand loyalty and brand management.
“The problem the Mac enthusiast has is, why has the greatest and most innovative and best managed computer company in history only got 2% share?”
Perhaps because when a company is in a monopolistic situation it doesn’t feel the need to innovate for selling products contrary to a company with 2% of market share.
But why did they get there?
Only because Microsoft is one year older than Apple (1975 compared to 1976)? Don’t think so.
Get over it! No matter what, but Microsoft did something better than Apple, be it advertising, be it software, be it treaties with other companies.
Fact is Microsoft is leader now, not Red Hat, not Novell, not Apple nor Sun or whatever.
maybe YOUR leader!….. but not mine!
“Fact is Microsoft is leader now, not Red Hat, not Novell, not Apple nor Sun or whatever”
Sorry for you, but on the server market, I don’t think that Microsoft is leader now.
And since when this whole thing is about servers? I thought this is all about desktop computers.
I don’t use a mac, but it’s not becuase I dont admire there O.S. I personally think its the best avialable right now. The reason I don’t is the same reason mac will never overthrow Windows: Its a hardware company and its O.S. is locked to its hardware. Windows is not #1 becuase there the best business with the best software ever. There #1 becuase when everything was just begining to start in the Personal Computer industry they had a decent prodect, and the best business model.
what? are you comparing the soviet union… to the Macintosh market?
you have got to be kidding me!!!!! talk about compairing two totally unrealated things in order to make some sort of point!
wow… these forums are a total waste of time!
“what? are you comparing the soviet union… to the Macintosh market?”
No. I am comparing the problems which believers in a movement have, when the rationale of the movement predicts events which do not occur. Or says that events which do obviously occur should be impossible.
The Mac problem is, if Apple really were so well run and the products so superior, it should have more than 2% market share. Because people can find no good reason to account for this relative failure, they make up contorted bad ones. As did the Old Left when desperately seeking to explain why things had not worked out they way they ought to have done in Eastern Europe.
I think it’s clear that MS copies Apple *more* often. But, you can’t blame them for staying competitive with the field, can you? This is how competition improves the situation for everybody.
I give Apple points for innovating, but I won’t take points away from Microsoft for giving us what we want.
Look, did Apple copy MS when it went to a BSD based OS? NT preceded OSX by a long interval, and you can still read the license acknowledgment to Berkeley Regents in XP.
Did Apple copy MS when it introduced a server version of OSX? This is, as a matter of fact, completely idiotic. Both companies have evolved together in a market subject to similar user pressures, sometimes one ahead of the other, but the idea that in any real sense MS is continually copying Apple is absurd. As indeed is the idea that Apple is conspicuously innovative in any general sense.
Has Apple copied MS in going to a three button mouse?
This chanting in unison of utter nonsense is one of the most unappealing aspects of the recent Mac converts.
Huh. I’m wondering why you replied to my post when I said basically the same thing. I’m glad OSNews readers read past the first few words.
I’m still wondering how this article gathered 80 posts so far.
Who cares?
konfabulator was an idea taken from amiga os
This is STUPID. Who CARES WHO COPIED WHO?
All that matters is who can market the product, implement the product, maintain the product, and present the product to the users. THAT’s all that matters.
In the end whoever you want could of invented it. A prime example of this would be car manufacturers..who made xx model with xx feature first? Who cares, who sells more car?
Now I ask you this Apple, who has more market share?
Thanks.
Since when Apple is the good guy in all situation?
Since when MS is the bad guy in all situation?
I do not know, but it seems to be the case everytime a topic turn on that subject.
I do not care who got the feature first or who copied from who! If I have the feature/design and it is working fine, it’s fine with me…
Isn’t this an issue strictly between Microsoft and Apple?
I would be more than happy to use an OS that combines the best of Windows and OS X. The users are the ones who are going to benefit in the end, so why are we making an issue of it?
KDE and GNOME continue to blatently rip off functionality from OS X and Windows. Why aren’t they being chastized?
1. “A sidebar with gadgets”. That’s funny, cause all I see is a sidebar with quick launch and a clock.
2. Is this a news website, or a Thom Holwerda weblog?
Discussions about who copied whom are useless. After seeing Vista Beta 2, we should know that there are probably only 3 significant differences between Windows and Mac OS X: (1) the limitations of hardware-software integration and the level of system resource requirements in comparing an operating system that takes on the burden of being able to run on any X86 computer and tries to be fully back-compatible versus an operating system that runs on a selected group of computers and is willing to break old software; (2) the effects of previous decisions about user-interface interactions on productivity–that is, those decisions that can be altered only at great cost; and (3) the level of administrator vs. ordinary user access to the operating system (and related warning messages) that better balances security with flexibility. Everything else can be copied or extended.
“the limitations of hardware-software integration and the level of system resource requirements in comparing an operating system that takes on the burden of being able to run on any X86 computer”
This is number two in the list of Great Mac Myths. There is no more hardware/software integration on OSX than in any of the BSDs, Linux, or XP. They all address their peripherals and chipsets in the same way, with about equal success.
The explanation of why this keeps being repeated is as usual social. Congnitive Dissonance. Finding bad reasons to justify choices we have made for non-rational reasons.
“There, there Alcibiades” said Socrates. “Have I not yet taught you that personal attacks are not a substitute for argument?” “If only it were true that hardware/software integration were simply a matter of addressing peripherals and chipsets in the same way and with ‘ABOUT equal’ success.” “Apple would not have 80% of the downloadable music market and there would not be the knashing of teeth over Plug and Pray.”
Don’t know about pods, and I do apologise if you thought that was a personal attack, it certainly wasn’t meant to be.
Here is the problem: we need something that can be pointed to and whose presence or absence can be empirically verified, before this talk about integration of hardware and OS means anything.
Now, take a concrete example. I’ve used the Radeon 9000 series graphics chip set in a Mini, under Windows, and under half a dozen linuxes. It looks exactly the same to me. Well, the Mini had some well publicised compatibility problems with some flat screens, but I didn’t notice any. So where exactly was this integration? How would I know what to look for?
If people simply mean that there are less drivers out there for Macs, fine. That’s verifiable, but its not what is normally called integration. If people mean that a higher percentage of the hardware that works at all with a Mac works with the built in drivers…?
a) its not integration b) its not even true, especially when compared to Linux.
Its not ease of installation surely? I’ve installed lots and lots of hardware on Windows, you just put in the driver disk (if you even need to) and it works.
This is the problem. If you say its there, and you can’t say exactly what it is, or how we test for it, or how it makes one computer work in any way different from another, we are probably talking about phlogiston.
“You see my dear commun5”, said Protagoras, “I am not saying that the meaning of something is the way we verify it. But I am saying that to go around proclaiming the importance of things whose existence we cannot verify will likely turn out to be pointless”.
OK, I was unfair. Microsoft did indeed innovate at some points:
– spyware and virii (they laid out the groundwork with MS Windows and MSIE) and the rise of the corresponding “anti”-Tools.
– blue screens of death (although they weren’t popular enough…)
– the animated office “wizard”
I don’t know many areas where Linux brought us any real innovation, but great ideas and innovation came and still come from a lot of other sources (list is not complete and in no particular order): OpenBSD, OpenVMS, Solaris, UNIX, Plan 9, Mac OS X and DragonFlyBSD. Innovative ideas often get ported between OSes, but I really don’t see many Microsoft ideas worth porting to other OSes.
Sorry, I just couldn’t resist to troll a bit =)
Sad…how you prefer to continue trolling rather than reply to the multiple responses posted to your previous post/troll.
Edited 2006-06-15 20:49
Doesn’t Linux copy Windows also anyway? No one seems to worry about that…
from my point of view the side by side screenshot of explorer and the finder are misguiding as for MacOSX the sidebar only serve to browse the main drive plus a hanful of favorite, and the explorer’s sidebar allow people to browse the computer tree. I would say that is quite a shame that ms didn’t adopt the infamous norton commander display style, that would greatly simplify most drag and drop operation that could come difficult with opverlaping windows.
oh common, how can u have missed these?
– remember os/2? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Object_Desktop (i love the effect of icons-readbehind)
– remember launchpads in CDE?
– remember nextstep’s Wharf?
omg these gadget things are so old.
i wont even call it a feature these days but basic tools in gui’s.
Sad…how you prefer to continue trolling rather than reply to the multiple responses posted to your previous post/troll.
Answers? 2007 products (and also Vista) are the future — I was talking about the past. It’s hard to predict if Microsoft will continue to be successful with their future products. Sorry, but it’s simply a fact that Microsoft’s success in the past had little to do with innovation. You can find evidence all over the Web.
Maybe Microsoft will innovate with Office 2007 — I don’t know. But I know they haven’t brought us much innovation in the past and that’s what I meant in my initial statement.
I totally agree with the author (Thom) of this article…
Apple I’m sure have borrowed things off Windows.
Windows borrowed things off OS X.
But the trend that I’ve noticed, is when Apple borrows things off Windows, it’s usually done so and improved on and a heck of a lot better.
When Windows borrows off OS X, they usually mangle it and give it a pretty nasty feel and destroy the interface of it.
So we are comparing Dashboard to the sidebar?
With the sidebar, I’ve just lost that relestate on my desktop, that’s a big chunk to loose.
OS X on the other hand, a quick push of F12 and Dashboard drops down and fades out so I can see my widgets.
Which is extremely hand, especially if your using things like currency converter and calculator, you can still see the work behind Dashboard and add up things etc.
Everyone copies everyone, but OS X seem to do a consistently better job, and is released a lot faster than Windows stuff.
Vista has already had a number of major features removed, the sidebar could be next.
Or are all the simularitys between Linux and unix a little fishy O:-)
It might be just me, but I don’t see how Explorer is copying off of Finder;
“Off of”? As a member of the Grammar Police, I hereby suspend your license to use the English Language. You are on linguistic probation for the next 30 days – the first “sonny” I see will result in a one year suspension of your write to employ/abuse written communication.
“Vista is not a product available to the majority of people for real use today.”
Within a month or so more people will be using Vista on the desktop than using Linux.
Microsoft copied Apple from day one, but why shouldn’t they copy the best anyways(Apple)!
I was pointing this out a few weeks ago….
I love Mac OS X, I think it runs smoother than Windows….less “hick-ups” thats from my experience though, others may say differently.
but people are still going to go out and buy Vista because they do not want to learn anything else…
and Bill was smart in what he has done with the OS.
Nothing is truly that original any more, I call it the “P-Diddy” Syndrome……
Take a look at this…
http://www.jmusheneaux.com/index24.htm#XEROX
Xerox is responsible for the GUI even exsisting….
I dont think it matters anymore….
Until Apple lowers their prices and the Open_Source Community comes up with a truly desktop OS (Ubuntu, maybe, havent used it yet, would like to) Microsoft will continue to dominate this market, and take billions from consumers….
Edited 2006-06-15 23:43
There are very few radically new ideas that aren’t based on anything that came before. As several people have pointed out, many of the ideas in Apple’s Lisa/Mac came from Xerox PARC, but even the work carried out by Xerox was a development of earlier ideas, for example from the Augmentation Research Centre at the Stanford Research Institute.
The idea that copying some elements from another company invalidates all the work that went into designing a products seems ridiculous to me. The important thing is whether the “copy” is a genuine evolution of the previous ideas, whether it actually improves anything rather than just being a cheap knock-off like a fake Rolex.
In my opinion Apple’s GUI was a very significant improvement over anything else that was around at the time. There are plenty of features in the Lisa/Mac GUI that didn’t exist in anything created by Xerox, and plenty of little tweaks that made it more pleasant to use. Comparing them side by side and looking at the evolution from one to the other, the amount of research and development carried out by Apple is obvious, and it’s clear that their GUI wasn’t simply a copy of what they had seen at Xerox PARC.
Other companies like Acorn, NeXT, Be, Commodore, etc. took obvious inspiration from Mac OS, but they also added their own ideas to create something different, with it’s own unique advantages.
As for Microsoft, I think it’s fair to say that versions of Windows prior to 95 were a very poor attempt at creating a GUI, greatly inferior to most of the alternatives. In my opinion even Windows 95 didn’t add much that was new, or even improve significantly on earlier ideas, it just did a better job at implementing them.
I think that Microsoft deserve much of the criticism they’ve received for the lack of innovation in their OS, compared with products from other, far smaller companies, but that shouldn’t detract from the evolutionary ideas that exist in Vista. The basic ideas may have originated elsewhere, but if they improve on the earlier software then Microsoft deserve credit for that. If nothing else it’ll help to push Apple and Linux developers to improve their own products, just like they’ve influenced Microsoft to improve Windows.
regardless of marketshare, hyp, lies, inovation, theft, features, hardware…. available applications, ease of development, being locked in or not…. i am using “brand A OS” on “Type X” hardward…. and i browse the OPEN internet and email with the best available browser… and i am totally happy with what i use… and what i paid for it (or… not paid for it)
so to all you “my OS is better than your OS” kiddies out there…. KISS OFF!
Edited 2006-06-15 23:49
I actually agree with you Thom
With the return of Jobs to Apple and the subsequent dismissal of the long-standing case against Microsoft, Apple and Microsoft agreed to cross license and share all IP between the two companies. Therefore, any newly integrated GUI enhancements that resemble Apple’s, are inherently legal. I’m glad too, Windows is just plain ugly.
My take: Microsoft doens’t want to make the best apps, they just want to dominate with mediocre proprietary stuff.
Windows is since day one a bloated buggy mess (always requiring huge hardware specs, antivirus, antispyware, firewall, hosts file protection and other malware protection, now a stupid activation process, …), WMP sucks, WMA sucks, Internet Explorer sucks, Outlook sucks, ActiveX sucks… even Word and Excel sucked compared to WordPerfect or Lotus 1-2-3.
They are just a mess of spaghetti code, bug ridden and big open doors to all sorts of security problems.
I don’t see any inovation, I only see them copying other ideas and then trying to crush the original makers by setting the new MS copied version as standard on every Windows instalation, like they did to Netscape, Corel and even Apple (OS) and Sun (Java).
I can’t find a single piece of software made by Microsoft that I could point out and say ‘Now this is really good, this is the best!’. But I find software like that when using Unix based OS like Linux or Mac OS X… some of which are opensource! Hell, I even miss old Mac OS 9 software made by Claris…
Like someone said… No, Microsoft is not evil. But it is too powerful, and consumers are being harmed by it. They’re limiting the available software, and charging us more and more for it.
Sorry my poor english. And please don’t mod down opinions just because they are Linux or MacOS users… I use all of them.
Edited 2006-06-16 00:53
Debating and/or arguing the basis for most desktop GUI interfaces (not limited to destops) is akin to a “Which came first, the chicken or the egg dilemma”. While some fundamental innovations can be loosely traced back to Xerox Parc, Mac and even Windows, the crude ideas and technologies of early desktop versions when contrasted to the modern implementations afford lively debate. In point of fact, each implementation is loosely based on the same fundamental seed idea, and the debate as to who had the idea first is really a transparent attempt to discredit or espouse the virtues of a particular users bias as it relates to their favorite modern OS.
There can not be an objectively reached conclusion on most of these issues. Bias and preference will generally decide it for most folks. We all know that the best idea or implementation does not always win. That is the frustration of tech savy users. The world is not fair and sometimes the market picks a loser. But its hard to argue with the market leader. Sore losers will find a way in spite of this, and in so doing expend a lot of wasted energy.
I don’t see anything wrong with copying. Almost all the great ideas evolve from, or are inspired by, other ideas. Fundamentally, that entails some form of copying.
It’s all to easy for Mac fanboys to knock Microsoft when it comes to copying, but it’s a pity they don’t take a closer look at Apple. It’s no secret tat Steve Jobs got his Mac inspritation from a trip to Xerox PARC many years ago. If you’ve ever used Nextstep or Objective-C then you’re basically using something that heavily derives from the Smalltalk language.
Apple may be the biggest mp3 manufacturer but they were not the first to release one. OSX is a BSD OS, so you could argue there’s no innovation here…
Even if MS have copied, it’s arguable that they’ve done a better job. For example, I think Explorer is a far better than Finder.
Desk accessories were small programs scheduled by the driver queue.
Apple scheduled them using the driver queue to achieve multitasking but suggesting they were “not programs but drivers” is not correct.
What exactly were they “driving”?
I guess you could say they “drove” desktop accessory functionality.
Well I suppose in that case excel is a spreadsheet driver….
Edited 2006-06-16 09:12
Who’s copying whom ?
Sorry, but both were present even as opensource before, in different projects. When I read the Longhorn (p)review in 2003 I thought “wow, what a big deal, a sidebar with some widgets on it” …
Even Vista has more important parts (at least, I hope so for it
).
I totally agree
Neal Saferstein
The addition of a BSD kernel and userspace really does not go beyond the NeXTSTEP spec, either.
just thought i’d point out that the kernel is GNU mach, not BSD.
dubbleudubbleudubble.thocp.net/companies/microsoft/microsoft_company.h tm
An error occurred while loading http://dubbleudubbleudubble.thocp.net/companies/microsoft/microsoft… tm:
Unknown host dubbleudubbleudubble.thocp.net
Are you sure you’re on the right website?
The original vista sidebar (from that early build) indeed already has the sidebar and MacOS don’t have a sidebar at all, so no one can say that having a sidebar in vista is copying Apple…
I think that the sidebar-idea is rather an idea-copy (witch I don’t see as a bad thing) of the many Unix/Linux sidebars out there.
BUT since we first saw the vista sidebar, they have changed it into something rather different than it was from the first start, something that I thing (apart from being a sidebar) reminds A LOT about Apples Dashboard.
I think that they “stole” the sidebar-idea from Linux/Unix, and the structure of it from dashboard, but I don’t think that is a bad thing, even though I mostly don’t even use Windows myself…
The Vista Explorer looks more like finder than XP Explorer, but it still doesn’t look to much like OS X Finder
The only similarity I see between iCal and Windows Calendar at first sight (Apart from being a calendar) is that marked items in the main view get shadows… And that is not even shown in the pics at LifeHacker.com