Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

> Then Windows 95 landed like a bomb: there was a CLOSE button in the corner of the window finally! And there was a start menu and a little status bar! And that's what we all decided we wanted, really badly. So it got cloned and picked up pervasively. Basically everyone not already part of one of the X11 camps was running this.

Huh? Perhaps I'm misunderstanding, but Mac windows had close buttons even as far back as System 1.x in 1984. Multitasking didn't land until System 5 with the optional MultiFinder in 1987 (made standard in System 7), but window close buttons were absolutely not a Win95 innovation.





Mac UI as generally understood didn't involve moving windows around yet, not really[1]. "Window management" at the time was limited to the paradigm you'd see on the mac plus screen where you'd have one app window and some dialog boxes. Yes, you had a button to close it, but the paradigm didn't match the needs of the big workstation screens on which X11 evolved.

[1] These were the dark days of the mac. It was falling behind rapidly and the failure was accelerating. Jobs would walk back in the door within months of this moment too! Again, Windows 95 isn't felt to be notable in this community of true believers, but it was absolutely a bomb in the market as a whole. It changed everything, instantly.


On the Mac Plus and other Macs in a similar chassis, yes, there wasn't much room to move windows around, but it was still possible. Apple also released several larger Mac displays (around 16 by my count) prior to 1995, including two 21" models (in 1989 and 1991, respectively). Workstation-like window management absolutely happened on Macs in the late 80s and early 90s.

The thing that the earliest Macs lacked was multitasking (outside of desk accessories). It took until Hertzfeld created Switcher before you could run more than one full Mac app at a time, and even that required 512K RAM.

(I remain amazed at how people even today will argue like this trying to avoid talking nice about MS. You're misconstruing the point, seemingly deliberately.)

Sure, on $15k ($30k in 2025 dollars) Mac II's. See also the answer elsewhere about NeXTSTEP being a player in this space.

No one was doing it in the consumer space, no consumer knew about that stuff, Linux consumers on their 14" 800x600 monitors sure hadn't see it. And to repeat yet again, Microsoft Windows 95 landed like a bomb in this community and changed everything. And it happened very fast.


A Radius two page display was just not that expensive. Neither was a Mac II. By 1992, you could buy a Mac IIci for $2900 and a TPD for $900-1100. You couldn't buy it on your allowance but it was reasonably common.

The finder was always a multi-window interface.

I just don't know where your memory is from.


Early GEM allowed arbitrary window sizing and positioning at least within the file manager, and Apple thus sued them, because they felt they had exclusive rights to ideas that they stole from Xerox

Also, the Amiga had the window management you refer to in its earliest versions, in 1984. Amigas cost a hell of a lot less than $15,000, even packed to the brim with expansions. I grew up with the Amiga, so your assertion that "No one was doing it in the consumer space, no consumer knew about that stuff, Linux consumers on their 14" 800x600 monitors sure hadn't see it." is anecdotally false.


[flagged]


I didn't flame at all in my comment. I just recounted the history, as it's known to have happened.

Windows 95 didn't bring that much to the table over Windows 3.1, in terms of basic window management. The taskbar is really about it.

GEM died when DRI lost their stalwart status, as well as when Apple sued them. Amiga died when Commodore refused to innovate in the hardware space, but the engineers always had top-notch innovative OS ideas.


Nope, Linux users in mid 90's where about FVWM until they got IceWM; but tons of people didn't care about Windows 95 like setups at all.

> Mac UI as generally understood didn't involve moving windows around yet, not really[1]. "Window management" at the time was limited to the paradigm you'd see on the mac plus screen where you'd have one app window and some dialog boxes.

When Windows 95 was released, the top of the line was the PowerMac 81000 and the remaining Quadras, and 1024x768 was common. Overlapping windows and multitasking were not particularly unheard of… The Mac Plus had not been sold for half a decade. System 7 was released 5 years before, and 7.5 at about the same time. I mean, sure Windows 95 was successful, but let’s not rewrite history.


Amiga also had explicit close buttons very early, Mac-style (and also had full pre-emptive multitasking in its very earliest days, which happened in 1984). I've seen pre-release screenshots of revision 24.24 of Workbench that had them (for reference, v1.0 of WB was approximately revision 30, 24.24 was in the era of the Velvet prototype where the system couldn't fully bootstrap itself)

Did the mac close actually close?

I have memories of being endlessly frustrated trying to use an iMac because "close" would just hide the window.

We've gone full circle, and now everything in windows likes to treat close as "minimize to system tray", but back in win9x era, the expectation was that close was "terminate the application".


With exception to single window utility programs, Mac windows have always truly closed with the resources taken by the represented document being freed and all that. The windows weren't hidden. It's just that closing the window ≠ quitting the application… the program can remain in memory even if it has no documents loaded.

This serves a couple of purposes: first, documents open more quickly (particularly when the program is loaded from a slow spinning HDD, floppy, etc) since the program doesn't need to be reloaded, and second, new document creation flows and non-document functions can be accessed without having a document open or requiring the developer to create a bespoke "home screen" UI that serves that purpose since the full menubar is accessible as long as the app is foregrounded.


"closing the window ≠ quitting the application"

See this is what I mean, that's completely alien to a MS Windows user in the mid-nineties.


It's just a different set of expectations. The original versions of the Mac OS should almost be thought of as a multiple-document interface. Consider the web browser you're reading this in. You wouldn't expect closing a single tab or window to quit the whole application, would you? That's really what was going on in early Mac system software. Go to infinite-mac and open Mac Paint on a System 1.0 machine. It becomes very obvious when you open the app, and all of the Finder windows and desktop icons disappear.

This is only confusing in comparison to Windows though. If you used graphical DOS applications, it was the exact same experience. You open the app, and can interact with your documents, but closing a document doesn't necessarily close the app.

Even Photoshop on Windows of the day worked the same way. When you opened Photoshop, a parent window would open that was the app. Closing documents left the app open, unless you also closed the parent window.


The comparison to modern browsers is odd and IMO plays into GP's point. You can't get a modern browser to be a single process so it is like your examples and bad for it.



Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: