• Please review our updated Terms and Rules here

What would computing look like now if the GUI was never invented?

Maybe things have changed since 1985. I remember back then having one monitor for text and one for graphics and using a digitizer tablet with a big menu printed on it. I actually missed using a drafting table with pencil and paper.

But nowadays I still have to periodically lay out my own masks, unfortunately. As far as fine resolution, the default snap spacing is 0.1 micron and maximum resolution typically 0.001 micron. I would rather spend hours sitting in a relaxed position and make small movements with my wrist and fingers with a mouse than use a light pen. Since you can zoom in with the mouse wheel, and there are multiple snap modes, resolution is not an issue.

For 3D CAD, like SolidWorks for example, some people use SpaceBall type devices that have 6 degrees of freedom that includes tilting and rotating so they can navigate easier in 3 dimensions.

So I suppose it depends what kind of drawing you are doing.

I believe some fine artists like to use tablets with pressure sensitive styluses that allow them to use the brush techniques that they are used to.
 
Last edited:
From my point of view (a programmer's) I wouldn't need a GUI in the bitmapped-images-graphics-icons form. I would want the step-up from serial TTY to full-screen VDU though. I worked for years with an excellent full-screen programmer's editor and I was very efficient with it. When I got my emulator running some years back I could re-visit that editor, and it was as good as I remembered. it. I don't need GUIs in today's sense, not really. My multi-desktop X Windows setup is mostly running xterm windows anyway, tons of them, and programming editors which look like terminals.. so the only difference from back then is how many I can run at the same time. Near the end of that era I used a terminal with 4 serial inputs. Then I switched to an X-terminal and got more windows. That's a step I liked, but it's built on the terminal concept anyway. And naturally the mouse isn't really needed for this. I mainly use the mouse to move focus from one window to another (no clicking involved).

-Tor
 
I'm late to this party. Sorry. My car wouldn't start.

There's so many comments that speak to me, so I'll just do a list.

OP: ... the GUI as we know it ...
The first thing that comes to mind is that "as we know it" is a very strange definition of graphical. As far as I'm concerned the green text on black background is a graphic. Adding ASCII and line characters, is also so. When text stopped being graphic I'm not sure, but it was probably right after we hit something and we all bumped our collective heads. Did anybody see stars? That's also a graphic.

Commodorejohn: Natural-language controls require more effort to achieve the same tasks.
I don't get that. One can type a simple command and a whole lot of stuff happens. Get mail, filter it into different directories, etc., etc. That's no different than clicking on something. They're both macros of some kind. Any input is a macro. I type "ls" or "dir" and all kinds of stuff happens. I don't have to actually enter the whole program by hand every time. Also, about what is natural language. I'd say that something like "copy thisfile overthere" is pretty natural. OK, so I'd actually use "cp", but doesn't that just look like texting? And that seems pretty natural to a lot of folk.

MikeS: You don't need a GUI to have multiple windows ...
Excellent point. In fact I suspect that nowadays it's the terminal users who use the most windows. I've seen a lot of garden variety GUI users with only a single window open.

Chuck(G): This is good? Using arm movements for fine detail work, rather than finger movements? Sounds like a recipe for RSD to me.
I've often seen people useing extremely large mice, such as the model that is most common. They put their whole hand right over the device and move their whole arm and sometimes much more of their bodies as well. I just watch with pity. This is like the disabled child who pokes themselves in the eye with a pencil because they either don't have the coordination, or the intelligence to find a better way. In either case, they require help. A healthy pearson would get a mouse that is small enough to fit between their fingers and set the "accelation" to 20x so they only need to move a few millimeters to get the pointer from one side of the screen to the other. The rest of their body would remail still. This is how we are taught to use a pencil, but many are not taught to use a mouse - apparently. Humans have the ability to do this kind of fine control by nature. That is why thick fingered violinists can play in tune, and surgeons don't cut your head off by mistake.

Spidersweb: I prefer the mouse, because with high sensitivity and resolution I can accurately position the cursor with very minimal movement.
Good for you. Minimal movement is the key. Unfortunately, using a mouse requires so much extra work. For one, you have to keep your eyes open and focus on the cursor, all the time keeping in mind the layout of the page so you can aim accurately. I know it doesn't feel like it, but there are a lot of brain cells, nerves, and small muscles involved in the whole procedure. Wouldn't your rather use those for something else, such as reading copy or thinking? I do realize though, that using the Gimp, or browsing can often be done with the one hand like that, and in a fairly relaxed manner. Life isn't all text.

Chuck(G): I haven't checked, but I believe the earliest uses for a CRT on a computer were for graphic, not text display, however crude.
I don't know that history either without checking, but note that an oscilloscope image is a graphic to most people's way of thinking.

MikeS: Like most aspects of this field (and many others) the 'best' way very much depends on what you're doing and under what circumstances: ...
Right on. It also depends on what concerns you. Some people like to develop speed, many don't care. Some people don't mind using lots of energy, others conserve. The thing about "text" though is that some people have an aversion to it. I'm guessing that's just because of lack of familiarity which of course is important too.

Tor: My multi-desktop X Windows setup is mostly running xterm windows anyway, tons of them, . . .
That's one of the great things about a multi-desktop window system.
Text rulz! ... (and it's a GUI)
 
Ole Juul said:
A healthy pearson would get a mouse that is small enough to fit between their fingers and set the "accelation" to 20x so they only need to move a few millimeters to get the pointer from one side of the screen to the other. The rest of their body would remail still.
Click to expand...
Or you can just use an IBM TrackPoint (or one of its clones), giving you fingertip pointer control without even needing to take your fingers off of the home row of the keyboard. That's why many business-class laptops still come with it -- because touch typists love it.
 
Ole Juul said:
I'm late to this party. Sorry. My car wouldn't start.

MikeS: You don't need a GUI to have multiple windows ...
Excellent point. In fact I suspect that nowadays it's the terminal users who use the most windows. I've seen a lot of garden variety GUI users with only a single window open.
Click to expand...

Split screens have been around on terminals for a long time--a two-window version, if you will. And I've seen those types of screens (different events happening on different parts of the screen) on operator displays harking back to the 1960s.

Chuck(G): This is good? Using arm movements for fine detail work, rather than finger movements? Sounds like a recipe for RSD to me.
I've often seen people useing extremely large mice, such as the model that is most common. They put their whole hand right over the device and move their whole arm and sometimes much more of their bodies as well. I just watch with pity. This is like the disabled child who pokes themselves in the eye with a pencil because they either don't have the coordination, or the intelligence to find a better way. In either case, they require help. A healthy pearson would get a mouse that is small enough to fit between their fingers and set the "accelation" to 20x so they only need to move a few millimeters to get the pointer from one side of the screen to the other. The rest of their body would remail still. This is how we are taught to use a pencil, but many are not taught to use a mouse - apparently. Humans have the ability to do this kind of fine control by nature. That is why thick fingered violinists can play in tune, and surgeons don't cut your head off by mistake.
Click to expand...

Things are a bit better today with optical mice not requiring special mousepads over the old roller or optical mouse. But I dare you to set your mouse sensitivity such that working (using any of the current notation packages) an orchestral score, with say, 24 different parts, can be done without both fine movements and gross movements. In fact, there is a fairly large body of composers and arrangers who prefer to work with pencil and ledger paper because it's faster. The computerized transcription is left to low-wage underlings, usually hired by the publisher. I've tried trackballs, trackpads and several types of mice. A pencil still beats them.

If the mouse is the answer, I'd love to hear the question.

As always, thanks for your carefully crafted reply.
 
Scalable fonts were going to happen. Maybe programmers wouldn't want it but there was a sizable publishing market using Compugraphic photographic fonts and if there was one thing the computer software manufacturers were noted for was chasing customers that spend large amounts.

Natural language: Games went from language parsers to having dedicated GUIs because writing a complete parser was hard. I just can't see anyone suffering through 20 years of Zork style annoyance just to manipulate files. Even today, people have to switches to using menus and buttons because the parsers still don't always produce the correct results.
 
vwestlife said:
Or you can just use an IBM TrackPoint (or one of its clones), giving you fingertip pointer control without even needing to take your fingers off of the home row of the keyboard. That's why many business-class laptops still come with it -- because touch typists love it.
Click to expand...
They can have it; I hate it.
 
Chuck(G) said:
...there is a fairly large body of composers and arrangers who prefer to work with pencil and ledger paper because it's faster. The computerized transcription is left to low-wage underlings, usually hired by the publisher. I've tried trackballs, trackpads and several types of mice. A pencil still beats them.

If the mouse is the answer, I'd love to hear the question.

As always, thanks for your carefully crafted reply.
Click to expand...
How about a digital pen? Is 14"x9.8" large enough?

Used to love mine until I upgraded Windows and they didn't have a new driver, but I see they're still around; may just have to get a new one. Looks like they even work in stand-alone mode now:

http://www.irislink.com/c2-2353-189...wp=GGS-IN-US&gclid=CPfh8Kuos70CFclDMgodH1wAGQ

http://www.amazon.com/Cross-CrossPad-CP41001-01-Portable-Digital/dp/B00000K1R3
 
Last edited:
Maybe. It would be interesting to see how well this integrates with existing software. (For example, when I'm working with D or E sized drawings or orchestral scores (virtual 25" tall by 8.5" wide)).

I'll have a look. When I'm sketching things on my deskop I use one of those large deskpads with the tear-off sheets.
 
Chuck(G) said:
If the mouse is the answer, I'd love to hear the question.
Click to expand...

:) I think that's one of my biggest criticisms, the adoption was market driven. Nobody asked a question.

The mention of TrackPoint is interesting. Yes, you don't have to take your hands off the keyboard, but Mikey hates it. Me too. It is not suitable for a typist because it works in a different time realm. Smooth - slow motion like. Suitable for when you're on LSD - or wish you were.

When it comes to communication in a language based world, the keyboard is still king. But we can probably all agree that there are indeed some things which are better done, indeed only done, with a pointing device. As Chuck(G) points out, you can't always get appropriate control with an overly sensitive mouse. I haven't tried one, but do think that for fine work the pad and stylus is probably the most controllable. They look very functional to me.

This thread is interesting, partly because the original question is not really being addressed. One aspect of that is that when we say GUI we seem to be talking about the use of a mouse. As I mentioned above, text is also a graphic. We are making some very limited assumptions when we say "GUI". So, what could have happened without a mouse? I think that in order to speculate on that we have to consider what (apart from mouse marketing) has driven the "needs" of computer users. In my opinion a lot of what we see in the modern GUI is decided by what some people thought was cool and that they could sell. That's fair enough, but things could have been different if people thought of computers as a way to get certain things done. We tend to think of the early text based programs as being somehow limited by that format. I would posit that the contemporary GUI is just as limited by its characteristics. Perhaps to envision what could have happened, or where we can go, we should think more about what we actually need to do.
 
Ole, I hate to sound crass, but I suspect the reason for the windows GUI exists is because it was free. Had Xerox PARC patented it and enforced its IP rights, we may not have it even now.
 
While a graphical drag and drop for file management is useful, I had a much easier time using XTREE in DOS with a split screen moving files while never having to take my hands off the keyboard. Everything I run is pretty much full screen and I still use the alt-tab keys to this day to switch between apps. Ctrl-ESC to bring up the windows menu (Model M has no Windows keys). There are just a lot of things that are better done without having to use a mouse.

What the current GUI craze did was allow people who couldn't recall what keyboard shortcuts were in DOS to hunt around for an icon to click. It allowed the masses to use a computer. It also caused the birth of the GUI accelerating video card because more and more of the CPU's time was wasted moving pixels around instead of the must faster ascii characters.

Optical mice are ok, but back in the day people who did graphics work petty much used a precise trackball.
 
Like I mentioned earlier, "GUIs" are a combination of many different technological aspects, and separate innovations. Many of these would have come together eventually anyway, but it is interesting to wonder about some specifics such as:

- What if Xerox Parc had not happened?

That certainly inspired many aspects of Visi On and, as much as they might deny it, the Apple Lisa/Mac. No Xerox Star obviously.

- What if Steve Jobs had not been influenced by Xerox Smalltalk?

This page: http://www.folklore.org/StoryView.py?story=Busy_Being_Born.txt
Shows some early Lisa prototype photos that look very non-"gui".

- What if Microsoft had not been "inspired" by Xerox/Apple/Visi On to create Microsoft Windows?

In late 1983 Microsoft seemed really determined to get Windows out in the face of that competition, but it dragged on for years before an actual release. There was a brief period when Microsoft was considering axing Windows 2.x in favor of IBM OS/2. Had they been even more behind, Windows 3 could easily have never happened.

Similarly, without Windows at all, they almost certainly would have gone the OS/2 path. And who knows what kind of GUI would have developed if those two had continued to work together.

- What if Windows 8 had never happened?

The world would be a much nicer place, the grass would be greener, and desktop sales would not be as much in the gutter. :p

And Chuck raises an interesting point. If Xerox or similar had gone patent and lawsuit crazy back then things would have been a lot worse. It was already bad enough. A suit from Apple was why GEM 2.0 had to stop using overlapping windows in it's file manager.
 
Unknown_K said:
While a graphical drag and drop for file management is useful, I had a much easier time using XTREE in DOS with a split screen moving files while never having to take my hands off the keyboard. Everything I run is pretty much full screen and I still use the alt-tab keys to this day to switch between apps. Ctrl-ESC to bring up the windows menu (Model M has no Windows keys). There are just a lot of things that are better done without having to use a mouse.

What the current GUI craze did was allow people who couldn't recall what keyboard shortcuts were in DOS to hunt around for an icon to click. It allowed the masses to use a computer. It also caused the birth of the GUI accelerating video card because more and more of the CPU's time was wasted moving pixels around instead of the must faster ascii characters.

Optical mice are ok, but back in the day people who did graphics work petty much used a precise trackball.
Click to expand...

You still don't have to take your hands off the keyboard in Explorer. ;)

Mouse is totally not required to work with it.
 
What about all the GUI patents that DID get applied for though? Didn't Microsoft try and patent the mouse arrow cursor and I think failed to patent a "window"? ..someone else claimed to have patented the scroll bar in the GUI. Perhaps they were all dismissed as too much impact to already existing GUIs though (not really up on my frustrational patent reading).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top