Could the CPC have included a mouse and a GUI based OS?

[Prodatron]

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.

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.

I'm pretty sure GEM was possible.

Even better

[cwpab]

Semi-offtopic, but...

- How do you guys think the "feature" of having a development enviroment load right from the start helped 8 bit computers?

[McArti0]

every 8 bit computer was supposed to be a better, smaller Altair 8800, so the programming environment was a natural one.

[Egg Master]

Even better

By "possible", I was more speaking about a Z80 based GEM by DR, than the possibility to do better.

[zeropolis79]

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.

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.

[Anthony Flack]

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. 

[Prodatron]

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.

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.

[Pollo]

The 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

[Prodatron]

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).

[McArti0]

Prodatron, stay away from this or Apple or MS will soon sue you. 

[GUNHED]

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?

1. Mouse

There were some mice for the CPC actually. Including a mouse would have raised the price of the computer though.


2. 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.

[Gryzor]

2. 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.

[eto]

The 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.

[pollito]

Also, 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.

[Gryzor]

The 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.

[GUNHED]

2. 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:



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 

[GUNHED]

The 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. 

[Gryzor]

2. 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:



Pure chaos, most is out of screen and just not usable imo.

  

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...

[cwpab]

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!).

[Prodatron]

Pure chaos

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...
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.

[andycadley]

Guys, 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. 

[Gryzor]

Pure chaos

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...
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.

[cwpab]

Yeah, yeah, it's medium resolution technically...

...but in the end this was our "HD, 4 color mode" for our countless gaming hours.

[ZorrO]

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.

[Gryzor]

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!