Not much to add to what the title says...
I wonder if that was a real option back in the day, and how it would have changed the market.
Also, could a mouse and a GUI based OS have fitted well within Sugar's "a mug's eyeful" approach?
You are right,
if in 1986 GEOS proved that even a computer like the Commodore 64 could offer
a graphical user experience why can't Amstrad CPCs have it?
There are actually several environments, the first of all is SymbOS.
I think the costs of creating a windowing system in the 80s for a 4Mhz home computer without an emulator and debugger would have been too high. Windows for a much more expensive PC was just being written. Single programs with GUI, ART Studio, etc. were all that could be expected.
In 84 initially? Not a chance! Very few computers were using GUI's and mice back then. It didn't even become a standard until years later.
I think people are losing their memory... either that or weren't born at the time.
Quote from: cwpab on 18:52, 26 January 25Not much to add to what the title says...
I wonder if that was a real option back in the day, and how it would have changed the market.
Also, could a mouse and a GUI based OS have fitted well within Sugar's "a mug's eyeful" approach?
In 1984 it wasn't clear that was a thing. The 16bits looked to research done by Xerox for the palo alto machine and hoped it was the right choice.
In addition it was more likely to be a trackball rather than a mouse.
In my opinion the mugs eyeful was to give the impression you got something more expensive and feature rich than you actually got so it wouldn't fit.
When the 16bits were released and windows 1 was out it the gui was becoming the next cool thing and then people made it on the amstrad in various forms.
Not practical for 64kb with tape machines. Maybe once 6128 it would have been possible, but still it would be pushing it.
May be on Amstrad Plus, with GEM, if the computer was 68000 based. :-\
Just an additional thought: Locomotive BASIC already supports Text-Windows, and joysticks (instead of mouse) were common. This combination allows to build something like a GUI, but maybe people just did not expect something like this from their computers or had never seen something like this before.
Quote from: lightforce6128 on 20:25, 26 January 25Just an additional thought: Locomotive BASIC already supports Text-Windows, and joysticks (instead of mouse) were common. This combination allows to build something like a GUI, but maybe people just did not expect something like this from their computers or had never seen something like this before.
I agree with that. A pseudo-graphical UI was certainly possible, but a mouse? At that cost? No way.
Also I'm wondering what even that UI could offer - certainly not much with a tape, maybe a few things with a disc (like file listings maybe)
Yeah, I'm aware people didn't demand it at the time.
The question is more about... Was it possible technically? Would the word of mouth have increased the CPC sales dramatically by making people (rightfully) believe it was The Future?
Technically possible? Yes.
But with just 64K of RAM and a tape deck for storage, it would've been borderline useless. It would just have been too early to be actively useful (it's debatable if it would've even been useful on a 664, but at least disk storage might have offered limited practical uses).
Quote from: cwpab on 21:36, 26 January 25Yeah, I'm aware people didn't demand it at the time.
The question is more about... Was it possible technically? Would the word of mouth have increased the CPC sales dramatically by making people (rightfully) believe it was The Future?
You're asking the right question and omitting the time frame which is critically important.
In 84-85, this wasn't an issue at all.
That's like asking was the Internet possible in the 80s. Yes, it was but only in certain industries (for want of a better term)
To answer your question, on a 64k machine, as already pointed out, wouldn't have been a pleasant experience. Passable on a 6128.
But if you want a real laugh, see if you could try it on a 48k Speccy!!!
A GUI wasn't even much use on the Amiga unless you had a hard drive. Programs that made you launch them from Workbench were a pain.
It's only really useful once you have a mass storage device with many files and folders. I have found that navigating the directories of the M4 quickly becomes tedious in BASIC, but with disks and tapes it was never an issue, since as soon as you stick the disk in you're already where you need to be.
The Macintosh came out in the same year and before that nobody was really thinking about WIMP. It was a new idea.
There was a GUI called WIMP System for the Dragon computers, by Broomsoft in 1987, distributed by Dragonfire Services.
One good point of the Dragon is that it has 2 analog joystick ports that could emulate a mouse.
Quote from: cwpab on 21:36, 26 January 25Yeah, I'm aware people didn't demand it at the time.
The question is more about... Was it possible technically?
Yes, of course. Not with tape (I'm not sure why this was discussed here), but with disc and at least with 128K. That was already double what GEOS needed, and today we know how much more is possible with the CPC in this regard :P
Quote from: cwpab on 21:36, 26 January 25Would the word of mouth have increased the CPC sales dramatically by making people (rightfully) believe it was The Future?
If someone had developed what was technically possible in terms of a GUI operating system in 1985 or 1986, I'm sure CPC sales would have increased at that time and perhaps extended the life of the CPC and Z80 machines in general.
The problem is that we have a lot more experience now than we did back then about how such a system should best look and be structured. So this is more of a theoretical but fun thought experiment.
Guys!
Does it really matter if it came out in 87 or 89?
Either way it wasn't in 84 or 85 and that's what we're really looking at here!
It was never on the cards for Amstrad back then! Why would it be? It wasn't a thing back then from a commercial standpoint!
this might be a little offtopic...but on topic...
what was the first GUI OS getting about for CPC?
i see there was Max Desktop from '87 (never tried it)
DES from 94, seem quite nice...
and the more modern ones like Symbos and futureos..
AMX Mouse software was consciously trying to mimic the Mac, and the Dragon one clearly is too. It could have been done in 1984, but that would have involved Alan Sugar being forward-thinking and radical enough to create a competitor to the Macintosh at the same time as Apple.
Another way of looking at it; it WAS done in 1984, but by Apple and Steve Jobs, not Amstrad and Alan Sugar. Although Alan Sugar did pursue a similar all-in-one design strategy, so it's not so crazy.
Maybe if Alan Sugar had gone on a tour of PARC like Steve Jobs had done, and seen all their designs like Steve Jobs did, he would have gone "Blimey, get a load of that mug's eyeful! Tell Roland our machine has to have a mouse and a pointer"
At the time, everybody thought light pens were going to be the main supplementary input.
@Neurox66 @cwpab - SymbOS was not the first, rather the last, as it was only from 2006, although it is the most advanced GUI for CPC, and the only with multitasking.
But there were a dozen or so different graphical overlays for Amsdos already in the 80s. Including CEUS RSX set for GUI made by Prodatron in 1990. And several well-known graphic and DTP programs for mouse control. Programs with GUI such as Art Studio were popular.
Dedicated mice for CPC such as AMX or DK-Tronics were expensive due to complicated interface and software. But DIY connecting an Atari or Geos mouse for smart people with a soldering iron was easy and cheap.
Browse the links on this page:
https://www.cpcwiki.eu/index.php/Category:CPC_GUI
In Poland, according to a survey from 1990, as many as 7% of CPC owners had a mouse, similarly to C64 owners, and only 2% of Spectrum and Atari XE owners. And I suppose there could be more of them in richer countries.
This is one of the first images I found regarding an "80ies computer workplace":
(https://www.gettyimages.de/detail/foto/office-worker-using-computer-lizenzfreies-bild/523137010)
[link to image] (https://www.gettyimages.de/detail/foto/office-worker-using-computer-lizenzfreies-bild/523137010)
It shows the "help system" at the top (bookshelf) and the "file management system" down to the right (disk box). The "active application" can be seen in the center (CRT monitor). Operation is done with a "cursor" (the hand of the operator). The computer itself is only part of this quite analog setup. Processes are organized differently, because swapping to another program costs time and requires many manual steps.
Today there are no longer books or external media needed, only fast network connections and mass storage for caching. Hundreds of programs seemingly run in parallel without any manual intervention needed.
Although both is about using computers, the scenarios are quite different.
Quote from: lightforce6128 on 02:42, 06 February 25It shows the "help system" at the top (bookshelf) and the "file management system" down to the right (disk box). The "active application" can be seen in the center (CRT monitor). Operation is done with a "cursor" (the hand of the operator). The computer itself is only part of this quite analog setup. Processes are organized differently, because swapping to another program costs time and requires many manual steps.
At least it's a Z80 machine that could also run a Windows graphical interface with multitasking if it gets a small RAM upgrade and bitmap graphics.
How old was
@Prodatron in 1984? ;D
So... clearly no gui. ;)
Stefan
Quote from: lightforce6128 on 20:25, 26 January 25Just an additional thought: Locomotive BASIC already supports Text-Windows, and joysticks (instead of mouse) were common. This combination allows to build something like a GUI, but maybe people just did not expect something like this from their computers or had never seen something like this before.
That's partially inaccurate. BASIC supports windows, yes, but they don't keep the content when other stuff is drawn on top. So in practice they are of little help.
For a minimum working GUI you'd need around 256K of RAM, I guess, to have storage to keep the window contents and to be able to run some simple applications. With 512K I think you can have a full GUI experience.
The CPC has early 512K RAM expansions, like the Vortex SP512 as soon as 1985. The AMX mouse was also released in 1985. So hardware wise there was no reason to not having mouse and GUI by that time. I guess it's more a matter of interest or need.
This was the heyday of the light pen.
Menu pointed at and selected with the pen.
The CPC came with the best BASIC to use it. CP/M was a great value add.
Unfortunately there was no GUI for the Z80 in the 80s. I'm pretty sure GEM was possible.
Quote from: abalore on 16:39, 06 February 25For a minimum working GUI you'd need around 256K of RAM, I guess, to have storage to keep the window contents and to be able to run some simple applications. With 512K I think you can have a full GUI experience.
For a GUI itself, 64 KB is more than enough, since you are not storing the background and/or the contents of each window as a bitmap, but only specifying for each window how it is constructed (its properties and the data of the controls). For a complete system with the most necessary functions, 128K would be enough if you want to have at least 50K left for programs.
Quote from: Egg MasterI'm pretty sure GEM was possible.
Even better :D
Semi-offtopic, but...
- How do you guys think the "feature" of having a development enviroment load right from the start helped 8 bit computers?
every 8 bit computer was supposed to be a better, smaller Altair 8800, so the programming environment was a natural one.
Quote from: Prodatron on 13:25, 07 February 25Even better :D
By "possible", I was more speaking about a Z80 based GEM by DR, than the possibility to do better. :)
Quote from: Anthony Flack on 05:41, 27 January 25Another way of looking at it; it WAS done in 1984, but by Apple and Steve Jobs, not Amstrad and Alan Sugar. Although Alan Sugar did pursue a similar all-in-one design strategy, so it's not so crazy.
Maybe if Alan Sugar had gone on a tour of PARC like Steve Jobs had done, and seen all their designs like Steve Jobs did, he would have gone "Blimey, get a load of that mug's eyeful! Tell Roland our machine has to have a mouse and a pointer"
At the time, everybody thought light pens were going to be the main supplementary input.
But despite Xerox coming up with the whole WIMP idea and execution, it didn't stop Apple suing everyone who wanted to use a WIMP system, which is why the GEM on the early Atari STs (and possibly the Amstrad PC1512 and 1640) wasn't very good.
AMX brought out their first WIMP systems on the CPC in 1985/6 although they had been used on the BBC Micro as ROM software before. Their MAX desktop was released on the CPC in 1987 on disc although in theory they could have released it on ROM.
1994 saw Campursoft's DES system on ROM but as a foreground ROM (if I'm remembering rightly) which meant it would go straight to the GUI on power-up.
I had the AMX mouse with the (limited, mode 1 only) art package with my 6128, which I originally bought second-hand. I have not seen one in action since the 80s but I don't remember finding it very appealing at the time. The Advanced OCP Art Studio, which was also WIMP based but didn't come with a mouse, was much better.
Quote from: zeropolis79 on 14:20, 13 February 25But despite Xerox coming up with the whole WIMP idea and execution, it didn't stop Apple suing everyone who wanted to use a WIMP system, which is why the GEM on the early Atari STs (and possibly the Amstrad PC1512 and 1640) wasn't very good.
PC GEM sucked a lot because Apple told Gerry they were going to sue him.
The Atari ST GEM didn't have these limitations and was much better because Tramiel told Steve (or someone else) that he would f*k him to h*l if they tried to sue him.
The same later applied to Microsoft (.DE Wikipedia):
"Shortly after the release of the PC version GEM/1 in 1985, Digital Research was sued by Apple Computer Inc. because its look and feel closely resembled that of the Macintosh environment "System" – later renamed Mac OS. GEM's file manager, "Desktop," was very similar to Apple's Finder. To avoid a lengthy legal battle, Digital Research agreed to significantly alter the PC version of GEM,[1] in particular by removing overlapping windows and the trash can from the desktop. The Atari version was not affected by these restrictions, as its development was handled by Atari itself, which was not legally pursued by Apple.
The ruling that user interfaces could be copyrighted led to a temporary Apple boycott call by the Free Software Foundation. The competing user interface, Windows, was released in version 1.0 at the end of 1985 and eventually gained greater recognition, especially after Microsoft was sued by Apple for Windows 2.03 for the same reason. Unlike Digital Research, Microsoft accepted the lengthy legal battle and ultimately won against Apple in 1992. As a result, Windows, unlike PC-GEM, was able to continue development without restrictions."
The only victim of Apple's a*ole behavior (a company that became cool by stealing ideas from Xerox) was Digital Research.
Quote from: Prodatron on 23:00, 13 February 25The only victim of Apple's a*ole behavior (a company that became cool by stealing ideas from Xerox) was Digital Research.
While I dislike Apple, they didn't steal anything. There was an agreement between Apple and Xerox.
"Xerox paid $1 million for 100,000 shares of Apple stock (prior to Apple's IPO). Steve Jobs got a tour of Xerox PARC and its GUI innovations, and in exchange Xerox could buy pre-IPO shares of Apple. Various PARC employees took jobs at Apple, and several ideas seen at Xerox ended up in Mac computers in a few years.
Really it was a win-win for Apple, and a lose-win for Xerox. Xerox lost engineers to Apple, but its Apple shares increased in value. The stock would be worth billions today if Xerox had held onto them."Source: Did Xerox pay Apple a billion dollars for the graphical user interface (GUI)? - Quora (https://www.quora.com/Did-Xerox-pay-Apple-a-billion-dollars-for-the-graphical-user-interface-GUI)
OK, good point!...
The Xerox Star came out in 1981, so anyone could look at a GUI anyway. And as far as I remember, Bill for sure (and even Gerry maybe?) did this. There were no software patents at that time (or were there? Otherwise the Visicalc people would be billionaires today; ok I read something about 1980, but it was still very weak?).
Apple had a head start because they had already seen the Alto in 1979, so they were able to bring out the Lisa in 1983 (my great love, the only Apple that I really like), the other major companies just came out with something 1-2 years later.
Ok, Apple paid 1mio$ for watching the Alto in 1979, but in 1984/1985 a GUI wasn't an Apple invention anymore at all, so it's crazy that they sued Digital Research only (and no one else with success).
Prodatron, stay away from this or Apple or MS will soon sue you. ;D
Quote from: cwpab on 18:52, 26 January 25Not much to add to what the title says...
I wonder if that was a real option back in the day, and how it would have changed the market.
Also, could a mouse and a GUI based OS have fitted well within Sugar's "a mug's eyeful" approach?
1. MouseThere were some mice for the CPC actually. Including a mouse would have raised the price of the computer though.
2. GUIIf you talk about a GUI including windows, the only MODE 2 would have made the smallest sense at least. But 600x200 is still very small for any kind of windows.
Using MODE 1 with 320x200 of course makes no sense, because in this resolution all you see on screen is chaos. Yes, pretty colorful but nearly unusable. imo: Windows are in principle chaotic and make the eyes sick, so they should not be used.
However, using a GUI with Icons and different screens could make sense. But again it would have increased the cost of the final computer. And probably it would have delayed the release date too.
Quote from: GUNHED on 16:26, 16 February 252. GUI
If you talk about a GUI including windows, the only MODE 2 would have made the smallest sense at least. But 600x200 is still very small for any kind of windows.
Using MODE 1 with 320x200 of course makes no sense, because in this resolution all you see on screen is chaos. Yes, pretty colorful but nearly unusable. imo: Windows are in principle chaotic and make the eyes sick, so they should not be used.
However, using a GUI with Icons and different screens could make sense. But again it would have increased the cost of the final computer. And probably it would have delayed the release date too.
The ST ran GEM at 320x200 in its low resolution and it was pretty darn usable.
Quote from: Gryzor on 08:15, 17 February 25The ST ran GEM at 320x200 in its low resolution and it was pretty darn usable.
I personally don't remember any GEM application that was really usable in 320x200. Even the desktop itself was very limited as you couldn't even see many files on a single screen, let alone if the window was not maximised. For anything beyond starting a game I had to switch to the 640x200 mid resolution (or use the b/w monitor).
However I think 640x200 can be an acceptable experience. OS/2 and Windows 3 supported CGA displays in 640x200 and it looks quite good. Atari ST GEM and even the Amiga were also very usable with that resolution.
Quote from: cwpab on 18:52, 26 January 25Also, could a mouse and a GUI based OS have fitted well within Sugar's "a mug's eyeful" approach?
The "mug's eyeful" refers to Amstrad's cheap hifi range which looked like expensive systems with separate components, but were actually mostly hollow with cheap parts. Amstrad's computer range was well engineered and well built, designed to be affordable for home users.
Quote from: eto on 10:29, 17 February 25Quote from: Gryzor on 08:15, 17 February 25The ST ran GEM at 320x200 in its low resolution and it was pretty darn usable.
I personally don't remember any GEM application that was really usable in 320x200. Even the desktop itself was very limited as you couldn't even see many files on a single screen, let alone if the window was not maximised. For anything beyond starting a game I had to switch to the 640x200 mid resolution (or use the b/w monitor).
However I think 640x200 can be an acceptable experience. OS/2 and Windows 3 supported CGA displays in 640x200 and it looks quite good. Atari ST GEM and even the Amiga were also very usable with that resolution.
Eh, my most-used app (of which I have the most vivid memories) was FCopy and I always used to run it in med-res as well. I don't really remember many other apps except for a couple of programming languages (which of course were much better in medium or hi-res). But the GEM itself was pretty usable at 320px. File management was what you'd use it for and, not having used much else at the time, I made do just fine with lo-res to be honest. Nowadays I push Hatari to unreal resolutions just for the fun of it, but that's another thing altogether.
Quote from: Gryzor on 08:15, 17 February 25Quote from: GUNHED on 16:26, 16 February 252. GUI
If you talk about a GUI including windows, the only MODE 2 would have made the smallest sense at least. But 600x200 is still very small for any kind of windows.
Using MODE 1 with 320x200 of course makes no sense, because in this resolution all you see on screen is chaos. Yes, pretty colorful but nearly unusable. imo: Windows are in principle chaotic and make the eyes sick, so they should not be used.
However, using a GUI with Icons and different screens could make sense. But again it would have increased the cost of the final computer. And probably it would have delayed the release date too.
The ST ran GEM at 320x200 in its low resolution and it was pretty darn usable.
Well, I disagree, just take a look here:
https://youtu.be/A1b9kUP0WtI?t=548
Pure chaos, most is out of screen and just not usable imo.
But whatsoever... the CPC is a different system compared to the Atari ST anyway :)
Quote from: eto on 10:29, 17 February 25Quote from: Gryzor on 08:15, 17 February 25The ST ran GEM at 320x200 in its low resolution and it was pretty darn usable.
I personally don't remember any GEM application that was really usable in 320x200. Even the desktop itself was very limited as you couldn't even see many files on a single screen, let alone if the window was not maximised. For anything beyond starting a game I had to switch to the 640x200 mid resolution (or use the b/w monitor).
However I think 640x200 can be an acceptable experience. OS/2 and Windows 3 supported CGA displays in 640x200 and it looks quite good. Atari ST GEM and even the Amiga were also very usable with that resolution.
Yes, 640x200 can be useful, if carefully dealt with. :) But still, better using whole screens instead windows. ;) :)
Quote from: GUNHED on 13:45, 17 February 25Quote from: Gryzor on 08:15, 17 February 25Quote from: GUNHED on 16:26, 16 February 252. GUI
If you talk about a GUI including windows, the only MODE 2 would have made the smallest sense at least. But 600x200 is still very small for any kind of windows.
Using MODE 1 with 320x200 of course makes no sense, because in this resolution all you see on screen is chaos. Yes, pretty colorful but nearly unusable. imo: Windows are in principle chaotic and make the eyes sick, so they should not be used.
However, using a GUI with Icons and different screens could make sense. But again it would have increased the cost of the final computer. And probably it would have delayed the release date too.
The ST ran GEM at 320x200 in its low resolution and it was pretty darn usable.
Well, I disagree, just take a look here:
https://youtu.be/A1b9kUP0WtI?t=548
Pure chaos, most is out of screen and just not usable imo.
:)
:picard:
All I see is a perfectly usable, if primitive (naturally) desktop system. You could use it out of the box right even reading a manual, of that's "chaos" then whatever...
Guys, this is the Amstrad forum.
With the maximum respect for all opinions, 320x200 means "high res" for us.
Now if you ask me about the "point & click" interface of games like Asterix and the Magic Carpet, with a HUGE square as the cursor, well that's another thing. (Imagine an OS like that!).
Quote from: Gryzor on 13:53, 17 February 25Quote from: GUNHED on 13:45, 17 February 25Pure chaos
:picard:
All I see is a perfectly usable, if primitive (naturally) desktop system. You could use it out of the box right even reading a manual, of that's "chaos" then whatever...
When hearing "chaos" I have to think about something else... ;D
I agree, Atari GEM and other Wimp GUIs like the Amiga workbench were already intuitive enough that you didn't need a manual at all. But GEM is not even the best example, as it doesn't use proportional fonts.
Proportional fonts not only improve readability, but also make much better use of the screen resolution. Then a Mode 1 screen is more like a Mode 2 screen. Not using proportional fonts is wasting much more space on the screen compared to using vicious, devilish (lol) windows.
Quote from: cwpab on 14:29, 17 February 25Guys, this is the Amstrad forum.
With the maximum respect for all opinions, 320x200 means "high res" for us.
Medium resolution, surely? We're not C64 users. :P
Quote from: Prodatron on 15:08, 17 February 25Quote from: Gryzor on 13:53, 17 February 25Quote from: GUNHED on 13:45, 17 February 25Pure chaos
:picard:
All I see is a perfectly usable, if primitive (naturally) desktop system. You could use it out of the box right even reading a manual, of that's "chaos" then whatever...
When hearing "chaos" I have to think about something else... ;D
I agree, Atari GEM and other Wimp GUIs like the Amiga workbench were already intuitive enough that you didn't need a manual at all. But GEM is not even the best example, as it doesn't use proportional fonts.
Proportional fonts not only improve readability, but also make much better use of the screen resolution. Then a Mode 1 screen is more like a Mode 2 screen. Not using proportional fonts is wasting much more space on the screen compared to using vicious, devilish (lol) windows.
I'm willing to bet we're thinking of the same thing 😁
Totally agree on the font issue.
Yeah, yeah, it's medium resolution technically...
...but in the end this was our "HD, 4 color mode" for our countless gaming hours.
I've always found programs with two file lists, like Norton, more convenient and useful than browsing through windows.
And I've always had a dilemma whether it's better to use mode 1, because it's not as sad as mode 2, or better mode 2 because it holds more letters than mode 1. But I think the narrow letters in mode 1 are a good compromise. :)
Nowadays, I pity the fools who work with single-pane file managers. But back in the day, it didn't matter much - dragging and dropping a file from a window onto another window or even drive icon was magic!
Quote from: ZorrO on 21:20, 17 February 25I've always found programs with two file lists, like Norton, more convenient and useful than browsing through windows.
That's why the file managing tool in SymbOS is a Norton Commander clone (the first of its kind for the CPC):
(https://www.symbos.org/gfx/shots/SymCommander1.gif)
There is no so-called "chaos" (lol!), thanks to the proportional font you get a lot of stuff on the screen even in 320x200 without problems, better than in Atari GEM:
(https://www.symbos.org/gfx/shots/SymCommander7.gif)
(the old font on these screenshots sucks a little bit, but it is now improved since 10 years or so)
Quote from: ZorrO on 21:20, 17 February 25And I've always had a dilemma whether it's better to use mode 1, because it's not as sad as mode 2, or better mode 2 because it holds more letters than mode 1. But I think the narrow letters in mode 1 are a good compromise. :)
This screenshot looks very cool! I really like it! Is it a P.o.C./Mockup or something existing?
SymCom. it's not first one Norton like utilities for CPC. 10 years early example:
https://www.cpcwiki.eu/index.php/Stream2
And even much older copy program with two file lists from Poland on picture below. :)
This screen is my experiment like could look windows, and how fast could move pointer in Basic. Icons are as string. I never finish this. (ZbyniuR is my old profile).
https://www.cpcwiki.eu/forum/programming/basic-programming-tips/msg117543/#msg117543
Wow that Stream2 looks amazing! It's got proportional fonts as well, like SymCommander (which is already, well, awesome!)
Quote from: Prodatron on 15:08, 17 February 25Quote from: Gryzor on 13:53, 17 February 25Quote from: GUNHED on 13:45, 17 February 25Pure chaos
:picard:
All I see is a perfectly usable, if primitive (naturally) desktop system. You could use it out of the box right even reading a manual, of that's "chaos" then whatever...
When hearing "chaos" I have to think about something else... ;D
Well, never too late to make it better - you can do it! ;D
Quote from: andycadley on 15:25, 17 February 25Quote from: cwpab on 14:29, 17 February 25Guys, this is the Amstrad forum.
With the maximum respect for all opinions, 320x200 means "high res" for us.
Medium resolution, surely? We're not C64 users. :P
Very true! For serious OS / Desktop on CPC the 640x200 - or even better 512x256 resolution is mandatory! :) :) :)
Quote from: ZorrO on 21:20, 17 February 25I've always found programs with two file lists, like Norton, more convenient and useful than browsing through windows.
Thank you so much!!! Totally agreed!!! :) :) :)
Quote from: dodogildo on 09:53, 18 February 25Wow that Stream2 looks amazing! It's got proportional fonts as well, like SymCommander (which is already, well, awesome!)
Ops, I totally forgot about the file manager in Stream2 (even after starting the Wiki article :D )
Problem is, that I could never try it in detail, as it makes problems in WinApe.
So maybe Stream2 really had the first Norton Commander clone on the CPC. But it's hard to say, the Disccopy example posted by Zorro is too primitive compared to an NC clone, so I wouldn't count it.
In any case IMHO Stream2 was the most impressive GUI/OS-like system in the 90ies, maybe even better than DES (not 100% sure about this, but I think so).
Actually the first Norton commander clone was done by the German Hardware Company Vortex: File-Copy dated 1986. See CPC-Power.com
https://www.cpc-power.com/index.php?page=detail&num=16203
In addition there was ZFILER running on CPC too, using the Z-System for either CP/M 2.2 or CP/M Plus.
Both program were well finished in the late 80ies. And there was even more for the CPC. ;) :)
OMG, I suspect that whoever says this is a Norton Commander clone has never tried it? :o Or simply ignored the fact that it is not comparable?
Just because the screenshot shows two file lists, one on the left and one on the right? ;D
The tool mentioned is simply a nightmare compared to a NC clone, as soon as you are no longer in the mid-80s and a masochist.
But thanks for mentioning it, now after seeing it :-X I still assume that SymCommander is the first real Norton Commander clone for the CPC ever (maybe I am wrong because of Stream2), later YANCC by Bernd was added, beeing the #2.
Yeah, that's just a file copier with a small display for the drives. That's no dual -pane file manager.
Quote from: Prodatron on 00:15, 20 February 25OMG, I suspect that whoever says this is a Norton Commander clone has never tried it? :o Or simply ignored the fact that it is not comparable?
Just because the screenshot shows two file lists, one on the left and one on the right? ;D
The tool mentioned is simply a nightmare compared to a NC clone, as soon as you are no longer in the mid-80s and a masochist.
But thanks for mentioning it, now after seeing it :-X I still assume that SymCommander is the first real Norton Commander clone for the CPC ever (maybe I am wrong because of Stream2), later YANCC by Bernd was added, beeing the #2.
Putting down other programmers' software doesn't make your own software any better. :picard:
Quote from: GUNHED on 16:53, 20 February 25Putting down other programmers' software doesn't make your own software any better.
Comparing old outdated stuff with actual more useful and userfriendly software doesn't make the old software any better.
That doesn't automatically mean that it was good or bad for that time, which is what you are trying to imply with your moral posturing.
Many old software, especially tools, were poor when you compare them with actual ones. Just compare any old assembler dev kit with
@m_dr_m Orgams, including Maxam, which was fantastic in the past, but looks useless when comparing it to Orgams.
Today - at least some - know so much more about software design and usability, as there was some progress during the last decades.
Well, I think that file-managers with two file windows are outdated since the 90ies. For my taste it makes more sense to have to ability to work with multiple(!) devices at the same time. So to speak to be able to browse through multiple directories, not only two.
The CPC has software doing this since the early 90ies, no other computer has that till today. So it looks like people are usually fine with having only two file windows. Just the simple way.
I've seen such file copies with two windows on Spectrum, Atari XE and C64, and of course also on ST and Amiga. But not from 80s I suppose. And also versions that are not only used for copying but also for editing text files, displaying binary files, images, and playing music. And running files. Of course such additional options reduce copy buffer and increase number of disk swaps with one drive.
In such simple systems as Amsdos where path to file is only one letter, so two windows are enough. It is different story with multi partitions and directories, to quickly jump between locations you need some way of remembering paths. So in 16bits that was useful.
I see that the Polish example I gave is only an unofficial translation of the German one. This is not only such translation of foreign programs from this source, but I thought that this one was original. Now I see I was wrong.
I really liked this program, it was fastest files copy I had, and only one that could fit an entire 178K disk as twice swap in 6128.
Quote from: GUNHED on 23:23, 20 February 25Well, I think that file-managers with two file windows are outdated since the 90ies.
THEY ARE WHAT? 😂😂😂
Sorry, but especially during the last few years dual pane file managers are actually gaining in popularity.
And sure, you have some programs that can do more than three panes (like Directory Opus), but man, if you thought GEM was chaotic, then again, I don't know what to tell you.
BTW: First version of Norton Commander was released 1984 (back the day it was called VDOS). So, yes, that two window thing is 40 years old now. (See Wikipedia ;-)
Happy Birthday!!! ;D ;D ;D
If Prodatron got his tardis working he can sell Mr Sugar Symbos for CPC. I bet if the CPC had Symbos in 1985/86 (when dktronics 256k ram expansions were available) I am sure it would have wiped the floor of all other 8bits.
Like the C64 did with Geos ;) :)
If you think you can compare the Geos of then with the SymbOS of now... ok.
Quote from: Gryzor on 10:20, 03 April 25If you think you can compare the Geos of then with the SymbOS of now... ok.
Well, of course they use different CPUs.
C64 software is not standing still. In recent years, much more interesting window OS than GEOS have been created. I haven't explored their capabilities too deeply, I don't even have an emulator, but from YT videos I assume they are more useful than SymbOS, with all due respect to Predator's talent and persistence.
https://c64os.com/
http://www.symbos.de/mirrors/www.clips64.de/desktop.htm
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MVeW2ZlV2WU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gDPRWKzuEtI
Do we have a ROM for CPC that would allow us to run any old software with a mouse without extra hundreds of KB RAM, and without touching keyboard? And still using Basic. They have it.
That's why I said "... The GeOS of then".
Quote from: ZorrO on 12:43, 03 April 25I assume they are more useful than SymbOS
What exactly do you have in mind is more useful there?
for example, you can run old software there, not just the one written for new OS. And also display any pictures for C64, not just those that have the same mode and palette that is set in SymbOS.
I watched it a long time ago and I don't remember all times when I thought I would like to have something like this on CPC.
Maybe I'm talking nonsense now, but I think there was an option to edit and use COPY-PASTE in Basic listing. The system doesn't take up a lot of memory, it's transparent, adding new useful functions to the old system. I would give up appearance of Win95 for such functions.
This could have been in other videos about these OSes that I have seen before, and not in the ones I linked above.
Quote from: ZorrO on 18:58, 03 April 25for example, you can run old software there, not just the one written for new OS.
Not really from within the OS. It basically goes back to normal mode. And imho if you have a lot of programs that doesn't really look good. From what I've seen it's not a real OS and not even a GUI but more a PUI (Petscii UI). It's also not multi-tasking, but purely single-tasking + one utility.
However, if I understand you correctly, you are missing a feature to conveniently manage your AMSDOS games/apps/files from in a nice Desktop environment. And there I definitely agree, I would also like something like that a lot that automatically starts when I turn on the CPC.
Quote from: eto on 19:50, 03 April 25However, if I understand you correctly, you are missing a feature to conveniently manage your AMSDOS games/apps/files from in a nice Desktop environment. And there I definitely agree, I would also like something like that a lot that automatically starts when I turn on the CPC.
That, I stongly agree too. For instance, C64 has a great new GUI for such tasks (WebFritzi's GUI64). Lightweight and so. I wish we had such a nice GUI as well:
https://www.lemon64.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=85868
Quote from: dodogildo on 23:13, 03 April 25Quote from: eto on 19:50, 03 April 25However, if I understand you correctly, you are missing a feature to conveniently manage your AMSDOS games/apps/files from in a nice Desktop environment. And there I definitely agree, I would also like something like that a lot that automatically starts when I turn on the CPC.
That, I stongly agree too. For instance, C64 has a great new GUI for such tasks (WebFritzi's GUI64). Lightweight and so. I wish we had such a nice GUI as well:
https://www.lemon64.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=85868
So that's like a file manager with some bells&whistles? Really nice.
Quote from: ZorrO on 12:43, 03 April 25http://www.symbos.de/mirrors/www.clips64.de/desktop.htm
As you mentioned Clips64 as well: These mockups were inspiring me a lot, when starting SymbOS, IMHO it's still the most beautiful GUI approach for the C64s' videohardware, so I decided to mirror the old website so that it won't be forgetten. Unfortunately these screenshots were probably only mockups, and the project has never made any progress, and later they "merged" with Wings. Anyway Clips64 and Wings both required a 20MHz 16bit SuperCPU with >1MB of RAM, which is an external computer using the C64 only as a dumb terminal.
Regarding your request for a nice starter of old programs:
That is not the approach of SymbOS at all, but you can select and start hundreds of SNA snapshot files in SymbOS and launch old games very fast and comfortable.
Currently the best way for starting old games quick and comfortable probably is
@abalore s Amsteam project:
https://www.cpcwiki.eu/forum/news-events/amsteam-wip-game-streaming-service-for-the-amstrad-cpc/
Quote from: dodogildo on 23:13, 03 April 25Quote from: eto on 19:50, 03 April 25However, if I understand you correctly, you are missing a feature to conveniently manage your AMSDOS games/apps/files from in a nice Desktop environment. And there I definitely agree, I would also like something like that a lot that automatically starts when I turn on the CPC.
That, I stongly agree too. For instance, C64 has a great new GUI for such tasks (WebFritzi's GUI64). Lightweight and so. I wish we had such a nice GUI as well:
https://www.lemon64.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=85868
Wasn't DES (https://www.cpcwiki.eu/index.php/Desktop_Environment_System) doing just that?
Or do I miss something here?
d_kef
Quote from: d_kef on 08:58, 04 April 25Wasn't DES (https://www.cpcwiki.eu/index.php/Desktop_Environment_System) doing just that?
Yeah, it looks amazing. Thanks for bringing this to my attention.
The topic of being able to run software for the native OS is of importance, as
@ZorrO mentioned.
If I would start to develop FutureOS today I would take that in bigger account.
However, using the RSX command !FDESK you can start FutureOS in a way, that the native OS, programs and data are preserved. So you can use Firmware and FutureOS and switch between them im seconds.
Just found an video about it: