• The Internet that could have been...

    From poindexter FORTRAN@REALITY to All on Wed Apr 3 15:00:27 2024
    Subject: The Internet that could have been...
    @MSGID: <660DD17B.5477.dove.dove-int@realitycheckbbs.org>
    @TZ: c1e0

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9CSjlZeqKOc&feature=youtu.be

    An interesting "what-if".

    Digital Research licenses DOS to IBM, keeps rights.
    Digital Research and Word Perfect merge...
    "Perfect Digital" buys a browser, takes the world by storm with Gem/95 desktop...
    Apple goes for Be instead of Next
    Micro-soft is a little browser company in Seattle.

    A long watch, but worth the time.
    ---
    Synchronet .: realitycheckbbs.org :: scientia potentia est :.
  • From Nightfox@DIGDIST to poindexter FORTRAN on Wed Apr 3 15:51:40 2024
    Re: The Internet that could have been...
    By: poindexter FORTRAN to All on Wed Apr 03 2024 03:00 pm

    Apple goes for Be instead of Next

    I heard about BeOS in the late 90s, and I thought it was really interesting. After Apple chose not to acquire them, they ported BeOS to x86-compatible PCs. In 1998 or 1999, I bought a copy of BeOS 4.5 and installed it on a secondary PC I had. I thought it was really nice - It was very fast and responsive, and I think the GUI looked very nice too. I would have really liked to see BeOS capture the market from Microsoft Windows, but by then I knew it was already too late for something like that.

    I think it's interesting that the Haiku project has now re-created BeOS as an open-source project. I've seen people posting about Haiku being more and more mature now, and I've seen some people say they're using it for their daily OS now.

    Nightfox

    ---
    ■ Synchronet ■ Digital Distortion: digitaldistortionbbs.com
  • From Skylar to Nightfox on Thu Apr 4 19:21:51 2024
    Re: The Internet that could have been...
    By: Nightfox to poindexter FORTRAN on Wed Apr 03 2024 03:51 pm

    Apple goes for Be instead of Next

    I heard about BeOS in the late 90s, and I thought it was really interesting.

    Before BeOS, I used GeoWorks and loved it. Then again, I'd been using GEOS on my C64 and GEOS 128 on my C128 for years.

    It wasn't a full OS, more of a "GUI workbench with apps". But not a lot of apps were available.
  • From Nightfox@DIGDIST to Skylar on Fri Apr 5 08:27:29 2024
    Re: The Internet that could have been...
    By: Skylar to Nightfox on Thu Apr 04 2024 07:21 pm

    Before BeOS, I used GeoWorks and loved it. Then again, I'd been using GEOS on my C64 and GEOS 128 on my C128 for years.

    It wasn't a full OS, more of a "GUI workbench with apps".

    I'd heard about GeOS, but I never used it. I think I first heard about GeOS around 1995 or 1996, and by then I'm not sure if it was actively developed anymore..?

    From what I heard, it sounded like GeOS performed better than Windows at the time. I often thought it was a bummer that Windows became the dominant computer platform when there were better alternatives available. I thought OS/2 was good too..

    Nightfox

    ---
    ■ Synchronet ■ Digital Distortion: digitaldistortionbbs.com
  • From poindexter FORTRAN@REALITY to Nightfox on Sat Apr 6 10:04:00 2024
    Subject: Re: The Internet that could have been...
    @MSGID: <66118667.5481.dove.dove-int@realitycheckbbs.org>
    @REPLY: <66101861.6158.dove_dove-int@digitaldistortionbbs.com>
    @TZ: c1e0
    Nightfox wrote to Skylar <=-

    I'd heard about GeOS, but I never used it. I think I first heard about GeOS around 1995 or 1996, and by then I'm not sure if it was actively developed anymore..?

    GEOS for the 64 was the basis for QuantumLink, the predecessor to AOL.
    It was an interesting GUI at the time.

    From what I heard, it sounded like GeOS performed better than Windows
    at the time. I often thought it was a bummer that Windows became the dominant computer platform when there were better alternatives
    available. I thought OS/2 was good too..

    I had a 386SX/16 with 4 mb of RAM that mostly ran Windows 3.1, but I
    spent most of my time in DOS or GeoWorks on it. Geoworks came with a
    bunch of apps, looked like the UNIX systems I used (Motif WM on
    UNIXWare) and ran well on my system.

    I bought a copy that came with Borland Quattro for DOS, which was why I
    bought it - I couldn't afford 1-2-3 and all of the pirate boards I
    frequented were focused more on games than business apps.




    ... Wait, this is a *scene*?
    --- MultiMail/Win v0.52
    ■ Synchronet ■ .: realitycheckbbs.org :: scientia potentia est :.
  • From Nightfox@DIGDIST to poindexter FORTRAN on Sun Apr 7 13:59:05 2024
    Re: Re: The Internet that could have been...
    By: poindexter FORTRAN to Nightfox on Sat Apr 06 2024 10:04 am

    GEOS for the 64 was the basis for QuantumLink, the predecessor to AOL. It was an interesting GUI at the time.

    I'd heard that. And I thought I'd heard GEOS for DOS was also used for the AOL client for DOS PCs.

    Nightfox

    ---
    ■ Synchronet ■ Digital Distortion: digitaldistortionbbs.com
  • From Skylar to Nightfox on Thu Apr 11 16:19:41 2024
    Re: The Internet that could have been...
    By: Nightfox to Skylar on Fri Apr 05 2024 08:27 am

    From what I heard, it sounded like GeOS performed better than Windows at the time.

    It was (and still is) amazing what GEOS could do on a 1 Mhz 8-bit 6510 machine with 64KB. There were not a lot of applications available. But for WYSIWYG word processing and page layout, it was sweet.

    GeoWorks performed *so* much better on a 286 than Windows 3.0 or 3.1 ever could. I had high hopes, but it never gained traction.

    I often thought it was a bummer that Windows became the dominant
    computer platform when there were better alternatives available.

    Same here. Although I grew up using a Commodore 64 and laughing at the limitations of a "PC compatible" and the low quality of PC games available at the time. By the time I was in high school, many of my (older) geek friends had an Amiga.

    Just one of many examples where the better technology fails to capture market share.

    I thought OS/2 was good too..

    I bought OS/2 and gave it a try around 1993. I thought it had potential but we had major driver compatility issues. By then I'd been programming for MS-DOS using Turbo Pascal and Turbo C++ for a few years and much preferred staying in DOS when using a "PC".
  • From Skylar to poindexter FORTRAN on Thu Apr 11 16:34:26 2024
    Re: Re: The Internet that could have been...
    By: poindexter FORTRAN to Nightfox on Sat Apr 06 2024 10:04 am

    GEOS for the 64 was the basis for QuantumLink, the predecessor to AOL.

    Nope. QuantumLink was a "modified version" of PlayNet and was launched in Nov 1985. PlayNet/Q-Link was later ported and became the basis for America Online.

    GEOS was developed by Berkley Softworks, no relation to PlayNet, and was released in March 1986. Some releases of GEOS did included a "bundled" copy of the Q-Link software. Although the custom Q-Link client itself was free and easily obtainable.

    It was an interesting GUI at the time.

    It was amazing for what it was capable of doing on a C=64.
  • From Nightfox@DIGDIST to Skylar on Thu Apr 11 16:56:36 2024
    Re: The Internet that could have been...
    By: Skylar to Nightfox on Thu Apr 11 2024 04:19 pm

    It was (and still is) amazing what GEOS could do on a 1 Mhz 8-bit 6510 machine with 64KB. There were not a lot of applications available. But for WYSIWYG word processing and page layout, it was sweet.

    Yeah, it was amazing what could be done with little resources. I'm also reminded of a floppy disk image that was going around in 2001 or 2002ish (from what I remember) that was a QNX Real-Time OS demo which was a bootable 1.44MB floppy disk that booted into a full GUI and included a word processor, web browser, and a couple other things. I thought it was fairly impressive.

    Same here. Although I grew up using a Commodore 64 and laughing at the limitations of a "PC compatible" and the low quality of PC games available at the time. By the time I was in high school, many of my (older) geek friends had an Amiga.

    I was aware of Amiga and had used them just a couple times, though by the time I got my own computer, it was an IBM compatible in 1992. Gaming was one of the things I did a lot with it, and I thought the games for it around that time were fairly decent.

    I thought OS/2 was good too..

    I bought OS/2 and gave it a try around 1993. I thought it had potential but we had major driver compatility issues. By then I'd been programming for MS-DOS using Turbo Pascal and Turbo C++ for a few years and much preferred staying in DOS when using a "PC".

    Interesting.. I thought OS/2 ran DOS applications fairly well. I've heard people say it even multi-tasked DOS applications very well. I'd often heard OS/2 described as a "better DOS than DOS" (and "better Windows than Windows").

    Nightfox

    ---
    ■ Synchronet ■ Digital Distortion: digitaldistortionbbs.com
  • From poindexter FORTRAN@REALITY to Skylar on Fri Apr 12 09:38:00 2024
    Subject: Re: The Internet that could have been...
    @MSGID: <661963B5.5490.dove.dove-int@realitycheckbbs.org>
    @REPLY: <6618700D.9092.dove-int@vert.synchro.net>
    @TZ: c1e0
    Skylar wrote to Nightfox <=-

    GeoWorks performed *so* much better on a 286 than Windows 3.0 or 3.1
    ever could. I had high hopes, but it never gained traction.


    I had a 386sx/16 with 3 mb of RAM, and GeoWorks ran nicely. One thing
    people haven't mentioned is that it had a set of nice GUI apps - the
    word processor was decent, it had a little flat file DB, and a couple
    of productivity apps that I used.

    I often thought it was a bummer that Windows became the dominant
    computer platform when there were better alternatives available.

    I think the later versions came with TCP/IP access and some sort of
    browser, but by then it was too late. All other OSes were run over by third-party support in Windows.

    I bought OS/2 and gave it a try around 1993. I thought it had potential but we had major driver compatility issues. By then I'd been
    programming for MS-DOS using Turbo Pascal and Turbo C++ for a few years and much preferred staying in DOS when using a "PC".

    In the corporate world, OS/2 rocked. I worked in an all-IBM shop from 1991-1993, and with OS/2 1.3 and 2.0, I could run Word and Excel, a
    comm app, connect to an AS/400 over twinax, share files over a token
    ring network, and all of this on a 386/25 with 8 mb of RAM.

    Later, managing a Netware network, all of the apps for managing the
    network were DOS console apps. You could run multiple apps without
    worrying about memory - or create a custom DOS environment if you needed
    it.

    It wasn't until TCP/IP that OS/2 fell behind. Windows 3.11 had the apps
    and built-in TCP/IP.






    ... Grape soda is the most effective hand sanitizer.
    --- MultiMail/Win v0.52
    ■ Synchronet ■ .: realitycheckbbs.org :: scientia potentia est :.