Value of Windowing is Questioned (1984)

I rarely make use of stacked windows, multiple virtual desktops and a tiling window manager work much better for me, even then if I'm using two panes it's almost always an editor in one and a shell to compile and run the other.

I can't understand this at all. I use multiple windows quite frequently -- I would estimate 40% of the time. Usually I have a document open in one window that I am modifying and another window in which I am searching for information -- browsing, reading other documents, etc. If I am consuming only (and not generating content) then one window at a time suffices, but creating usually requires me to have sources open and available. This is one of the reasons why I can use tablets to consume content, but not really to generate it.

Am I unusual in this? Or perhaps is window use becoming less common because people are producing less content, either because they become passive consumers or because they are interactively engaging with systems (playing a game, online banking, etc) instead of creating?

The desktop metaphor was always more cute than useful. Multiple graphics contexts is a useful software construct. But I think implementers fell in love with the capability rather than take a cold hard look at user benefits. It makes a nice demo: What should I drag with the mouse? Drag the papers around your virtual desk.

I find the timing interesting. It certainly sheds light on whether or not Microsoft should own the trademark on "Windows", as it is obvious it is an established generic term at the time by the way the article was written ("windows" is not in direct reference to Microsoft's product at all in the article).

This is not news to me, mind you, as I remember painstakingly entering every character of a long machine-language program into the monitor (call -151) of my Apple //c back in the '80s, for a graphical "windows" system published in Nibble Magazine (I really wanted a Cauzin strip reader!). This software was merely interesting, not really useful without extensive work. You could do the same sort of thing with a few pokes (defining the corners of the printable/scrollable screen area), just without the fancy graphics. It had no mouse support, relying on the keyboard for input and the software currently running in a window to manage the contents of that window. Being hand-entered from a magazine, I didn't exactly expect more. Still, it was fun to show people at the time. :) Of course the software discussed in the article was far more useful, but still probably not that much at the time.

I also remember the threats that Caldera made against Microsoft, saying they had enough prior art to lift Microsoft's trademark. That certainly had some interesting twists.

Later the suit between Microsoft and Lindows, which ended (interestingly) with Microsoft buying the name from them.

I was curious of exactly when the trademark was applied for and given, and was astonished how late (and mysterious) it was:

http://www.geek.com/news/suit-seeks-to-strip-ms-of-windows-t...