[HN Gopher] GeoWorks: The Other "Windows"
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       GeoWorks: The Other "Windows"
        
       Author : janandonly
       Score  : 117 points
       Date   : 2021-12-01 10:56 UTC (1 days ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (tedium.co)
 (TXT) w3m dump (tedium.co)
        
       | rdp36 wrote:
       | I loved my HP Omnigo
       | http://www.hpmuseum.net/display_item.php?hw=200
       | 
       | I should look for one to buy...
        
       | xattt wrote:
       | Why were so many window managers dependent on DOS back then? I
       | get the impression that developers were stuck in a paradigm that
       | using x86 meant the use of some form of DOS as a back-end.
       | 
       | Contrast to today, and there's a post on HN every other week
       | about implementing some hobby OS.
        
         | a-dub wrote:
         | > Why were so many window managers dependent on DOS back then?
         | I get the impression that developers were stuck in a paradigm
         | that using x86 meant the use of some form of DOS as a back-end.
         | 
         | because that's all there was. sure there was crap like xenix
         | and sco and later bsdi, and bespoke things like mwc coherent
         | but nobody actually used any of those things really.
         | 
         | when i was in high school i recycled an old 386 pc from the
         | local university and set it up with linux and ip masquerade so
         | that a single dial-up internet connection could be shared by a
         | whole school computer lab. some rich kid's dad somehow got to
         | take it home and then somehow got my phone number and then
         | called me very angrily because i wouldn't tell him how to get
         | out of this linux thing and so he could "drop to dos."
         | 
         | most people didn't understand the idea of operating systems
         | back then, dos and pcs were one and the same for most people.
         | the idea that you could do something to your computer that
         | would make it unable to run "pc compatible" software that you
         | buy in boxes at the store was just utterly befuddling for the
         | vast majority of pc users.
        
         | dotancohen wrote:
         | Because DOS already did everything reliably and in a way that
         | the users expect. If your window manager had any behaviour
         | slightly different from DOS - such as using the current
         | timestamp when copying a file - then users would notice and
         | complain. That was a very long trail of behaviours to copy.
         | 
         | Or just rely on DOS.
        
         | simonh wrote:
         | GEOS didn't really rely on DOS, it just used it as a launcher
         | and for some basic I/O for compatibility's sake. It would have
         | been trivial to cut loose from it, but why bother? Customers
         | would just have worried that it wouldn't run on their 'DOS'
         | computers.
        
           | dfox wrote:
           | Essentially all DOS graphical extensions used DOS for
           | filesystem implementation, including GEOS, and more notably
           | Windows before the 3.1 (3.1 had user option in control panel
           | to use Windows-native FAT implementation) and 9x (which could
           | use DOS drivers essentially transparently, but primarily as a
           | fallback).
           | 
           | In fact, most 90's DOS software used DOS only for the FS
           | access and maybe print spooling with every other kind of
           | hardware being accessed directly.
        
             | simonh wrote:
             | True, file system compatibility is a really big deal.
        
         | bluedino wrote:
         | There were DOS clones and other operating systems back then.
         | CP/M, DR-DOS (take a look at VIEWMAX), PC-MOS, VM/386...
         | 
         | Part of the problem was you needed to get your OS on all the
         | computers out there, most clone builders had agreements with
         | Microsoft. The other was you needed DOS compatibility, or else
         | you didn't have any software to run.
        
           | coldacid wrote:
           | I wouldn't call CP/M and DR-DOS "clones" of MS-DOS. It's more
           | the other way around: MS-DOS originated as a x86 clone of
           | CP/M!
        
             | bluedino wrote:
             | I meant dos clones and other operating systems
        
       | akoster wrote:
       | It was neat to play with in a VM using the (quasi-legal) copy
       | from WinWorld [1] as well as its derivatives Breadbox Ensemble
       | [2] and New Deal Office [3].
       | 
       | [1] https://winworldpc.com/product/geos/2x
       | 
       | [2] https://winworldpc.com/product/breadbox-ensemble/4
       | 
       | [3] https://winworldpc.com/product/new-deal-office/2000
        
       | simonh wrote:
       | And then there was GEM, the other 'other' windows. I worked for a
       | year doing PC support for a local health authority here in the UK
       | in 1989 and a few of the secretaries used GEM.
       | 
       | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GEM_(desktop_environment)
        
       | weinzierl wrote:
       | _"GEOS did not pioneer the GUI; most of its features were already
       | present in the larger OSes of the day, like the classic Mac
       | (albeit, not Windows). What GEOS did show is that cheap, low-
       | power, commodity hardware and simple office productivity software
       | worked. You did not need a $2000 machine to type a simple letter
       | and print it."_
       | 
       | To me, GEOS was a tech demo - an incredible tech demo - but I did
       | not, and don't know anyone, who ever used it productively. Not
       | even to type a simple letter and print it. There were much more
       | efficient ways to do that.
       | 
       | My caveat is that I say this from the _" cheap, low-power,
       | commodity hardware"_ home computer perspective. That GEOS ran on
       | my C64 was mind-blowing, but not particularly useful.
        
         | svachalek wrote:
         | Likewise, I used it for letters and school papers. Its time was
         | brief but it was fully functional, not just a demo.
        
         | reaperducer wrote:
         | _I did not, and don 't know anyone, who ever used it
         | productively. Not even to type a simple letter and print it.
         | There were much more efficient ways to do that._
         | 
         | I knew an east coast limousine company that ran its whole
         | business on it.
        
         | themadturk wrote:
         | See my other comment; it was highly usable and I was productive
         | with it creating newsletters.
        
         | gilmore606 wrote:
         | I did! At age 14 I used it to make newsletters for my church.
         | It was a big step up for me from Newsroom, which could only
         | layout in a 2x3 grid -- I could finally do WYSIWYG column-flows
         | with embedded clip art!
         | 
         | GeOS felt like the future to me, because it was (or seemed to
         | be) treating the screen as an arbitrary pixel grid, free from
         | the constraints of a 40x24 char array and 8 sprites.
        
       | azinman2 wrote:
       | All of the sudden HN seems to be getting a ton of articles and
       | Wikipedia links to all things DOS these days. Just a fervor of
       | nostalgia?
        
         | detaro wrote:
         | And people seeing one post and being remembered of other,
         | related things, and submitting them (or mentioning them in
         | comments and then someone else thinks they are worth submitting
         | on their own). You often get topic clusters that way.
        
         | gorkish wrote:
         | Sorry, we accidentally left you off of the #DOScember memo, but
         | yes it's been a thing for a few years.
        
       | notacoward wrote:
       | Related: Atari GEM (1985)
       | 
       | https://www.atarimagazines.com/compute/issue60/175_1_GEM_A_N...
        
         | drclau wrote:
         | GEM came with my first PC-XT, 8086 8MHz (or maybe it was even
         | 8088, not sure), 640KB RAM, 20MB HDD, 5.25" floppy, monochrome
         | display etc. It worked on top of DOS.
         | 
         | See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GEM_(desktop_environment)
        
         | kabdib wrote:
         | GeoWorks was one of the (very small) set of windowing systems
         | we looked at for the Atari ST.
         | 
         | This was only a month after Atari was bought, and the folks
         | from Commodore were running things without consulting us "old
         | Atari" types (establishing trust took a few months). There were
         | no slam dunks; every windowing system had its drawbacks. I
         | remember reading a bunch of documentation and not being
         | impressed by _anything_ commercially available.
        
         | coldacid wrote:
         | More competitor than simply related. At least on the PC front.
        
           | notacoward wrote:
           | Isn't competition a kind of relationship? I kind of thought
           | that anyone interested in one contemporary graphical Windows
           | alternative might be interested in another. I would have
           | mentioned Desqview too, but we already had a story about that
           | very recently.
        
             | coldacid wrote:
             | That's why I said "simply related" in my comment.
        
             | opless wrote:
             | [OT] Lundukes writeup of desqview X
             | https://lunduke.substack.com/p/desqviewx-the-forgotten-
             | mid-1...
             | 
             | Was something I aspired to acquire, but never did.
             | 
             | Just running real-mode Win 3.1 in a window was a pretty
             | awesome feat.
        
           | einr wrote:
           | Yeah, GEM from Digital Research had nothing to do with
           | GEOS/GeoWorks, apart from being DOS-based graphical
           | interfaces that attempted to compete with Windows.
        
             | notacoward wrote:
             | > apart from being DOS-based graphical interfaces
             | 
             | Yeah, apart from that. "Other than that, how did you enjoy
             | the play, Mrs. Lincoln?" As if someone interested in the
             | history of such interfaces can even put that one into
             | proper context without considering contemporary
             | developments.
        
       | andrew_ wrote:
       | Oh man, nostalgia! That ran on our first home PC, and it was
       | where at the age of 12 I learned what a cookie was. The days!
        
       | api wrote:
       | I played with GEOS for the Commodore 64 when I was a kid. It
       | wasn't really _that_ useful on a system that tiny, but it 's an
       | amazing testament to what can be done on a tiny machine by
       | skilled programmers who aren't larding everything up with layers
       | and layers of abstraction.
       | 
       | The Amiga was way, way ahead of its time. Commodore is really a
       | tragedy. There is a parallel universe out there somewhere where
       | Commodore survived and the Amiga evolved into today's equivalent
       | of the Macintosh.
       | 
       | It just shows that the best tech does not necessarily win. In
       | fact it often doesn't. Winning in the market requires a large
       | confluence of factors including network effects, timing,
       | availability of capital, etc. Being good helps but it doesn't
       | make it for you.
        
         | fatnoah wrote:
         | I also used Geos as a kid. I played with geoPaint a lot, used
         | geoPublish to make newspapers with my friend, and used geoWrite
         | to do reports and papers for school. It was amazing what could
         | be done in that environment.
        
       | thanatos519 wrote:
       | The PC version of GeoWorks even rocked on my souped-up IBM PC
       | 5150. The display PostScript was a perfect preview of the
       | printouts from my 9-pin dot matrix printer.
        
       | KingOfCoders wrote:
       | Sadly C64 arrived on the scene when the Amiga was launched. It
       | would have been amazing if the C64 was launched with Geos and
       | apps would have been written for it (An Amiga was my first
       | computer with a mouse, I wrote a text windowing system for my
       | Amstrad which was my first GUI).
        
         | mattl wrote:
         | Amstrad CPC?
        
           | KingOfCoders wrote:
           | Yes!
        
             | mattl wrote:
             | What was your program called?
        
       | cowmix wrote:
       | GeoWorks was great. This document I used to get investors for my
       | ISP back in late '92 was created in GeoWorks (and printed on a
       | dotmatrix printer.) Not too shabby for a 286 with 1M of RAM.
       | 
       | https://www.dropbox.com/s/n78x5cp8na4iilq/InternetDirectIncP...
        
         | coldacid wrote:
         | It was really amazing what could be done with PC/GEOS in all
         | its incarnations on even the lowest-powered of hardware. It's
         | to be expected, though, considering what Berkeley Softworks
         | could pull out of a C64 with classic GEOS!
        
           | II2II wrote:
           | While the C64 implementation of GEOS was an amazing example
           | of working within limited constraints, I am left wondering
           | how much it harmed the reputation of GEOS on other platforms.
           | From my recollections, the frequent disk access on
           | Commodore's notoriously slow drives resulted in a product
           | that was barely usable.
           | 
           | When I finally tried GeoWorks on a PC, I was stunned by it's
           | performance and functionality. Unfortunately this was well
           | past its prime since I avoided it for many years because of
           | that initial experience.
        
             | coldacid wrote:
             | Disk accesses were faster with 1571 drives than 1541s, for
             | sure, and having a supported RAM expansion could cut down
             | on the number of accesses needed to do anything. Similarly,
             | GEOS 128 got away with fewer accesses as it could make use
             | of the extra RAM available (although running GEOS 64 on a
             | 128 would be no better than running it on a C64).
             | 
             | That GEOS 64 was "barely usable" was more a reflection of
             | what the Commodore 64 could provide than anything else. And
             | I think more people than not recognized that fact. The
             | problem with PC/GEOS is that it arrived at a time when
             | Microsoft was releasing Windows 3.0 and trying to strangle
             | competition in that space. Had Berkeley started working on
             | it much earlier and got it out the door in '88 or '89, it
             | might have had better success than it did.
        
               | BBC-vs-neolibs wrote:
               | I may be mixing up timelines here, but a C64 with 1571
               | and a RAM expansion (REU) would approach a cheap PC clone
               | in price, so not much use if the main goal was to use
               | GEOS. It's also easy to forget that PCs had 100% flicker
               | free, sharp monochrome monitors (slow decay phosphor) and
               | a C64 monitor or TV would flicker like hell in
               | comparison.
        
             | themadturk wrote:
             | GEOS on a C64 with RAM expansion performed very nicely, as
             | I remember. I found it very usable to produce computer club
             | newsletters using GeoPublish for about a year in the late
             | 80s. (I don't remember how big my memory expansion was, and
             | I owned both a 1541 and a 1571-compatible floppy drives).
             | 
             | Of course, at the time I was simply blown away by using
             | something that looked almost as good as a Mac, so it's
             | possible my experience (and my memory of it) is tainted.
        
           | hvs wrote:
           | It's an amazing feat, but man was it terrible. I just set it
           | up recently on my C64 (with 2MB additional RAM, sd2iec
           | drives, etc) and it was a huge pain and still barely usable.
           | I lived through that era, so it's not just my inflated
           | expectations distorting my view.
        
         | kingcharles wrote:
         | "What is the Internet?"
         | 
         | Ah, for those simpler days.
        
       | wazoox wrote:
       | I remember that the Borland Office suite with Ami Pro and Quattro
       | Pro was available on GEOS and worked like a charm on a low-end
       | 386 :)
        
         | Narishma wrote:
         | Not Ami Pro. That was a Windows application from the very first
         | version.
        
       | Damogran6 wrote:
       | MAN I'm glad you posted this...with OS/@ and DesqViewX posts, I
       | kept wracking my brain trying to remember this one.
       | 
       | It's dot-matrix 'laser quality' mode went over each line 6
       | times...so wasteful, so pretty.
        
       | pavlov wrote:
       | Some interesting notes about GeoWorks' architecture in Steve
       | Yegge's blog from 2008: http://steve-
       | yegge.blogspot.com/2008/05/dynamic-languages-st...
       | 
       | The whole thing was written in x86 assembly -- 15 million lines!
       | And that proved its eventual downfall.
       | 
       | Here's the quote from the post:
       | 
       | --
       | 
       | "OK: I went to the University of Washington and [then] I got
       | hired by this company called Geoworks, doing assembly-language
       | programming, and I did it for five years. To us, the Geoworkers,
       | we wrote a whole operating system, the libraries, drivers, apps,
       | you know: a desktop operating system in assembly. 8086 assembly!
       | It wasn't even good assembly! We had four registers! [Plus the]
       | si [register] if you counted, you know, if you counted 386,
       | right? It was horrible.
       | 
       | "I mean, actually we kind of liked it. It was Object-Oriented
       | Assembly. It's amazing what you can talk yourself into liking,
       | which is the real irony of all this. And to us, C++ was the
       | ultimate in Roman decadence. I mean, it was equivalent to going
       | and vomiting so you could eat more. They had IF! We had jump CX
       | zero! Right? They had "Objects". Well we did too, but I mean they
       | had syntax for it, right? I mean it was all just such weeniness.
       | And we knew that we could outperform any compiler out there
       | because at the time, we could!
       | 
       | "So what happened? Well, they went bankrupt. Why? Now I'm
       | probably disagreeing - I know for a fact that I'm disagreeing
       | with every Geoworker out there. I'm the only one that holds this
       | belief. But it's because we wrote fifteen million lines of 8086
       | assembly language. We had really good tools, world class tools:
       | trust me, you need 'em. But at some point, man...
       | 
       | "The problem is, picture an ant walking across your garage floor,
       | trying to make a straight line of it. It ain't gonna make a
       | straight line. And you know this because you have perspective.
       | You can see the ant walking around, going hee hee hee, look at
       | him locally optimize for that rock, and now he's going off this
       | way, right?
       | 
       | "This is what we were, when we were writing this giant assembly-
       | language system. Because what happened was, Microsoft eventually
       | released a platform for mobile devices that was much faster than
       | ours. OK? And I started going in with my debugger, going, what?
       | What is up with this? This rendering is just really slow, it's
       | like sluggish, you know. And I went in and found out that some
       | title bar was getting rendered 140 times every time you refreshed
       | the screen. It wasn't just the title bar. Everything was getting
       | called multiple times.
       | 
       | "Because we couldn't see how the system worked anymore!
       | 
       | "Small systems are not only easier to optimize, they're possible
       | to optimize. And I mean globally optimize."
       | 
       | --
        
         | mseepgood wrote:
         | Applications were also written in GEOS Object C (GOC), which
         | was a C preprocessor that added object-oriented features to C
         | (similar to Objective C or early C++).
         | 
         | Example:
         | https://github.com/bluewaysw/pcgeos/blob/master/Appl/GPCMail...
        
       | a-dub wrote:
       | the geos version of aol was pretty brilliant for its time.
       | prodigy technically predated it, but prodigy looked like crap
       | (think bloomberg terminal) while early aol was all geos.
       | 
       | i think i had a discounted early adopter "charter membership" for
       | aol... shame it didn't come with stock.
        
       | davidgerard wrote:
       | I used GeoWorks in a job in 1994, on a 386sx, I forget how much
       | RAM. It was excellent, thoroughly up to the task!
       | 
       | ... except it crashed at the drop of a hat, multiple times a day.
       | Most annoying.
       | 
       | They wouldn't spring the whole $45? for a Windows 3 license.
       | 
       | Should try the open source version, and see how 27 years'
       | memories hold up - probably badly.
        
       | InTheArena wrote:
       | I loved geoworks. It would scream on my 386SX with 40mb hard
       | disk. It was a joy to use.
       | 
       | It taught me a valuable life lesson that I still return to.
       | Watching a clearly superior platform be destroyed by inferior
       | technology, but superior business savvy (and shady ethics) taught
       | me that sometimes the better technology looses, and that life
       | isn't fair.
        
       | dmead wrote:
       | I'm not surprised at the sun workstation requirement. All those
       | screenshots reminded me of CDE. Was it just repackaged Solaris
       | stuff?
       | 
       | Edit. The answer is yes.
        
         | jhbadger wrote:
         | No, but it was licensed Motif (the widget set that CDE used).
         | GeoWorks was excellent at what we would call "themes". The
         | released versions allowed the user to choose widgets that
         | either looked like early Microsoft Windows or Motif. And there
         | were screenshots of unreleased builds that allowed Macintosh
         | and NextStep theming as well, but these weren't shipped
         | (probably over fears of their legality).
        
         | coldacid wrote:
         | PC/GEOS took the Motif appearance, but I'm pretty certain that
         | it didn't include the actual Motif toolkit. The source was
         | essentially all hand-tuned x86 assembly. It would have been
         | impossible to simply repackage anything from SunOS (Solaris
         | didn't exist yet).
        
         | notacoward wrote:
         | Seems very unlikely, at least until near the end of the
         | product's lifetime. CDE and the underlying infrastructure were
         | implemented in network-oriented and not-very-efficient ways
         | that would not have been very compatible with contemporary PCs
         | let alone the C64 where GEOS started. The SunOS (not Solaris
         | yet) build requirement was a different reflection of that
         | capability gap, similar to why I had to use a PC to develop
         | software for an even less powerful Apple IIgs at around the
         | same time. The _appearance_ might have been similar, perhaps
         | even deliberately, but copying the implementation would not
         | have been a route to even the minimal success they had.
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2021-12-02 23:02 UTC)