In article <m36### [at] rpc66acratrcojp> , mas### [at] acratrcojp (Roland Mas)
wrote:

>  My point was not to blame anybody (and I'm genuinely sorry if I hurt
>your feelings) but to propose concrete things. I know of course that
>Windows 95 is not the only supported platform, I know that there are
>Mac users, and OS/2 users, and Unix users, and so on. The real point
>is: why continue developing one interface for each of these platforms,
>instead of writing one that is portable? This is just an idea, of
>course. But if I add that I personnally intend to develop at least one
>of the two interfaces I described before, what wrong is there?

Hmm, there is no (unsolvable) technichal problem, yes, but be assured of one fact: A
Mac user, for example, would never use a GUI made in the Windows style. What i am
refering to are menu names, dialog layout, shortcut keys, etc. There has been such a
protest when Microsoft made Word 6 for the Mac because all this was exactly like the
Windows one. People continued using the old 5.1 Word simply for this (and a few other
bugs) reason!
So basically this would end up in some kind of GUI philosophy war because Mac users
are used to do thinks in a different manner than WinDOS users are. And the same goes
for the Unix ports etc.


Thorsten


____________________________________________________
Thorsten Froehlich, Duisburg, Germany

Post a reply to this message