PDA

View Full Version : The most significant software



Erik
May 2nd, 2003, 04:07 PM
Computers are basically useless without software. What was the most significant software created?

Add your own below if you think the poll is lacking! :)

CP/M User
May 2nd, 2003, 10:42 PM
"Erik" Wrote in Message:

> Computers are basically useless without software. What was the
> most significant software created?

CP/M! :-)

> Add your own below if you think the poll is lacking! :)

'GEM' is perhaps more significant than Windows because
it was well in advance at being the main GUI for the IBMs.

Apple decided that this must not be the way at all & really
crippled what was a fairly comperhensive Operating
Environment into something limited.

For machines like the XT, 'GEM' is the operating environment
to have. Windows simply can't really cut it on one due to the
speed of it! :-(

BASIC might have been somewhat significant for any
programmer to begin with, but understanding Pascal
has been a fairly easy process of understanding. I've
critised people in the past for using BASIC, but if you
feel comfortable using BASIC, then Pascal maybe the
next step in terms of speed! :-)

Regards.

cmcnabb
May 5th, 2003, 09:15 AM
It seems to me that OS/8, the DEC operating system for the PDP-8, should be considered pretty significant. OS/8 roots are clearly seen in RT-11, which influenced quite a bit of the CP/M user interface. CP/M begat MS-DOS, which begat Windows.

CP/M User
May 5th, 2003, 02:12 PM
"cmcnabb"wrote in message:

Hi,

> It seems to me that OS/8, the DEC operating system for the
> PDP-8, should be considered pretty significant. OS/8 roots
> are clearly seen in RT-11, which influenced quite a bit of the
> CP/M user interface. CP/M begat MS-DOS, which begat Windows.

Some will say that M$-DOS was a hack of CP/M-2.2 (or CP/M-80).
DR-DOS was the result after starting life as CP/M-86. Except by
that stage, some of the things which CP/M-86 v1.1 had, were taken
out of DR-DOS!

Can't VAX also be tied in connection with OS/8?

Regards.

Erik
May 5th, 2003, 02:21 PM
I agree. The PDP-8 is, in my humble opinion, one of the first examples of a "personal" computer, although it was most often used as a workgroup machine.

OS8 certainly was an influencer of later character based OSs.

Erik

CP/M User
May 5th, 2003, 03:37 PM
"Erik" wrote in message:

Hi Erik,

> I agree. The PDP-8 is, in my humble opinion, one of the first
> examples of a "personal" computer, although it was most often
> used as a workgroup machine.

> OS8 certainly was an influencer of later character based OSs.

Perhaps the best OS? I suppose no-one can deny it, since I guess
it started the whole OS saga! :-)

Regards.

mbbrutman
May 5th, 2003, 03:41 PM
All of these represented milestones in the industry:

- MS Flight Simulator 2.x (or Sublogic's version) - both done by Bruce Artwick

- WordStar 3.31

- Turbo Pascal 3.0

- Lotus 1-2-3

- PC/MS DOS 2.x, 3.x, and 5.x

- PC-Talk (comm program) with Xmodem


Broader technologies:

- Unix and C language. (Not really for 'personal computers'), but landmark indeed

- X-Windows (remote GUIs!)

- Sockets

CP/M User
May 5th, 2003, 10:23 PM
"mbbrutman" wrote in message:

> All of these represented milestones in the industry:

> - MS Flight Simulator 2.x (or Sublogic's version) - both done by Bruce
> Artwick

The program used to test to see if you had an IBM compatable! :-)

> - WordStar 3.31

This was important towards the success of CP/M, as it brought it to many
8-bit systems which relied on CP/M. Those systems itself also had some
differences between there own such as the disks & disk formats they used.
However many programs were written back then to help bring a Wordstar
document from one computer to another.

> - Turbo Pascal 3.0

Obviously being the last version of Turbo Pascal 3.x for CP/M, it came at
a time when CP/M-86 was competing with DOS. If you had a true IBM
compatable then you could use PC-DOS version of Turbo Pascal (with
the little extras!). The CP/M-86 version wasn't like that because CP/M-86
existed on many systems which weren't IBM compatable. However Turbo
Pascal 3.x was written in such a way, it could be used on any of those
other systems, such as the DEC Rainbow.

> - Lotus 1-2-3

I guess this is because it's easy to use.

> - PC/MS DOS 2.x, 3.x, and 5.x

Well I have PC-DOS 5 runing nicely alongside CP/M-86! PC-DOS 3.3
maybe the best from that series of 3.x's! :-) DOS 2.x was the coverup
to get away from that CP/M type of system. But I don't even think
DOS 1.x supported user areas!

> - PC-Talk (comm program) with Xmodem

An early 'net based program I imagine?

Broader technologies:

- Unix and C language. (Not really for 'personal computers'), but landmark indeed

- X-Windows (remote GUIs!)

- Sockets

Well in time we'll see how useful these things might become! :-)

Regards.

Jon Jarmon
May 12th, 2003, 11:19 PM
I'm not sure totally about software -either the Basic Interpreter language
in the early Personal Computers or the importance of Computer games-
Remember about Atari's Pong and the much earlier 1958 tennis for two demo.
I think that one of the most significant development in Computers was
Douglas Englebarts and others ARPA Stanford Research Institutes development of the Computer Mouse,Graphic User Interface,Hypertext and networking in the 1960's with the Online system.You can see a RealPlayer video of this 1968 demo if you go to Nathans toasty technology page at http://www.toastytech.com and go to his GUI links page.

Also when most of the people left Englebarts group, a lot of the leading computer scientists later worked at Xerox PARC to develop a astonishing machine- The Alto Workstation(Essentially the prototype of the Modern Personal Computer).This ONE man operated small 128k memory or 256k memory machine had a 3 button brush rollerball Computer mouse using the Smalltalk environment and a Graphic User Interface(GUI) with ethernet network,the first developed Laser Printer,MIDI etc later to inspire the Apple LISA,Macintosh and Microsoft Windows.
I consider the Xerox Alto workstation to be the ULTIMATE desirable computer collector item.
The invention of the Integrated Circuit in 1958 and 1969 Intel invention of the Microprocessor revolutionized the World.
Charled babbage in the 1800's was the father of the modern computer.
And of course lets not forget the ARPA's Internet and later the WWW.

CP/M User
May 13th, 2003, 01:38 AM
"Jon Jarmon" wrote in message:

Hi Jon,

> I'm not sure totally about software -either the Basic Interpreter
> language in the early Personal Computers or the importance of
> Computer games- Remember about Atari's Pong and the much
> earlier 1958 tennis for two demo.

> I think that one of the most significant development in Computers
> was Douglas Englebarts and others ARPA Stanford Research
> Institutes development of the Computer Mouse,Graphic User
> Interface,Hypertext and networking in the 1960's with the
> Online system.You can see a RealPlayer video of this 1968 demo
> if you go to Nathans toasty technology page at
> http://www.toastytech.com and go to his GUI links page.

The only trouble with that I see with that, is nothing much has changed
since that period! :-)

> Also when most of the people left Englebarts group, a lot of the
> leading computer scientists later worked at Xerox PARC to develop
> a astonishing machine- The Alto Workstation(Essentially the
> prototype of the Modern Personal Computer).This ONE man
> operated small 128k memory or 256k memory machine had a 3
> button brush rollerball Computer mouse using the
> Smalltalk environment and a Graphic User Interface(GUI) with
> ethernet network,the first developed Laser Printer,MIDI etc later
> to inspire the Apple LISA,Macintosh and Microsoft Windows.

The Apple GUI I suppose you can say was created when Xerox
showed the future to head of the Apple Corporation what they
had. Digital Research also had this GUI (which came out a year
after the Mac) called GEM which Apple severly crippled (perhaps
it was just too darn good to be starting with something so good
so early). Windows started life a an extremely BASIC GUI & by
the time it got to Win3.x (when Apple saw an opportunity to
put a stop to) it wasn't quite that simple.

> I consider the Xerox Alto workstation to be the ULTIMATE
> desirable computer collector item.

?!?

> The invention of the Integrated Circuit in 1958 and 1969 Intel
> invention of the Microprocessor revolutionized the World.
> Charled babbage in the 1800's was the father of the modern
> computer. And of course lets not forget the ARPA's Internet and
> later the WWW.

Speaking of Charles babbage is more related to what started
the computer revolution (however he was many years too early
which, sadily, is why he didn't quite get anywhere!). I see
computers making a comeback when WWII arived, however
they were built with a specific task in mind (nevertheless they
were electronic) & with the coming of the transistor this brought
even more smaller & powerful computers. :-)

Cheers.

Jon Jarmon
May 13th, 2003, 01:54 AM
Thanks CP/M User I forgot the Transistor a very important development.
I had an idea for a Graphical keyboard Interface(A GKI) with programmable Color LCD buttons with Icons on each Key.I noticed that many Computer Games had confusing Keyboard overlays.It's hard to remember what key performs what function when you have 100's of Computer Games especially sophisticated flight simulators that have 3 functions per key.Just my Idea that's all.
Yes the GUI development in the 60's was a revolution.

CP/M User
May 13th, 2003, 04:11 AM
"Jon Jarmon" wrote in message:

> Thanks CP/M User I forgot the Transistor a very important
> development.

No worries! I nearly forgot about it myself, until I remembered
how powerful computers became in that era of computing! ;-)

> I had an idea for a Graphical keyboard Interface(A GKI)
> with programmable Color LCD buttons with Icons on each Key.I
> noticed that many Computer Games had confusing Keyboard
> overlays.It's hard to remember what key performs what function
> when you have 100's of Computer Games especially sophisticated
> flight simulators that have 3 functions per key.Just my Idea that's
> all.

That will get some people thinking! :-)

> Yes the GUI development in the 60's was a revolution.

Well I suppose it wasn't too far away. If you look at the early
game Spacewar! which came out in the early '60s, even that
has graphics! :-)

Cheers.

jd
May 13th, 2003, 04:25 PM
The Apple GUI I suppose you can say was created when Xerox
showed the future to head of the Apple Corporation what they
had. Digital Research also had this GUI (which came out a year
after the Mac) called GEM which Apple severly crippled (perhaps
it was just too darn good to be starting with something so good
so early). Windows started life a an extremely BASIC GUI & by
the time it got to Win3.x (when Apple saw an opportunity to
put a stop to) it wasn't quite that simple.


It's interesting that most people forget about the Apple Lisa (which is NOT a Macintosh) and was released in 1983. The Lisa OS had many features that Windows and the Mac OS only incorporated in the mid-late 1990's (like multi-tasking).

The reason that the Macintosh (and presumably Windows) operating systems were so restricted was the hardware requirements of such a system as Lisa (or Win95/MacOS 7).

The Lisa was an extremely expensive machine (US$10k in 1983) but came with a full application package that we would now recognize as an "Office Suite" named "Lisa Office" even back in 1983!

The Lisa Operating System was capable of supporting colour printing (although only had a monochrome screen - a third party add on could give an external colour screen). Lisa also came with built in serial and parallel I/O and 3 expansion ports, but I digress.

So why was the Macintosh OS "crippled"? Mainly due to commercial reality (there are some other interesting reasons relating to the Mac vs Lisa development teams and styles which can be read elsewhere). However, it appeared in 1983 that no one wanted to pay the price for the features the Lisa OS had to offer. They even baulked at the lower cost of the Mac when it was introduced with less features the following year.

So my nominations for significant software would be:

Lisa OS V1 (the original)
Lisa OS V3.1 (final version which allowed colour and Mac file creation!)
Lisa Office Suite 7/7

Erik
May 13th, 2003, 06:31 PM
It's interesting that most people forget about the Apple Lisa (which is NOT a Macintosh) and was released in 1983. The Lisa OS had many features that Windows and the Mac OS only incorporated in the mid-late 1990's (like multi-tasking).


I agree that the Lisa was an exceptional machine, but it wasn't what I'd consider significant for several reasons.

First, it wasn't first. The Apple Lisa "borrowed" heavily from the Xerox PARC projects that created the GUI concept. Microsoft also dipped into that punch bowl and introduced the first version of Windows around the same time as the Lisa came out.

The Lisa was also not really a successful machine. They sold, but they weren't going like hotcakes at any point.

Finally, the innovations that the Lisa represented, while important, weren't significant enough to change the industry. Yes, the industry was revitalized by the GUI, but the Lisa doesn't represent the advent of that technology. It doesn't even represent the advent of an affordable GUI.

The software I listed in the poll all had a major impact on personal computing as a whole and advanced the industry by just existing.

Microsoft BASIC was the lingua franca of the early PC revolution. CP/M was the first "standard" operating system that crossed different hardware platforms. VisiCalc, which got my vote, was the first PC application that actually represented a reason to buy a PC. Before VisiCalc they were just toys with potential. After Dan Bricklin's invention there was an actually cost benefit to buying a PC (in that case, an Apple ][) that you could realistically represent on paper. The ROI could actually be calculated using the software itself! :)

Don't get me wrong, I love the Lisa and respect its place in history, but I wouldn't list it in my top ten most significant PC related items.

Erik

CP/M User
May 13th, 2003, 07:05 PM
"jd" wrote in message:

> It's interesting that most people forget about the Apple Lisa
> (which is NOT a Macintosh) and was released in 1983. The Lisa
> OS had many features that Windows and the Mac OS only
> incorporated in the mid-late 1990's (like multi-tasking).

Unfortunately for the Lisa, the price & lack of colour screen back
in 1983 was it's downfall.

> The reason that the Macintosh (and presumably Windows)
> operating systems were so restricted was the hardware
> requirements of such a system as Lisa (or Win95/MacOS 7).

Even when I was using a Mac Plus or Mac Classic the OS was
restricted to running one program at a time. Did the OS which
came with the Lisa have more freedom in running multiple
applications at once?

> The Lisa was an extremely expensive machine (US$10k in 1983)
> but came with a full application package that we would now
> recognize as an "Office Suite" named "Lisa Office" even back in
> 1983!

Wow! :-)

> The Lisa Operating System was capable of supporting colour
> printing (although only had a monochrome screen - a third party
> add on could give an external colour screen). Lisa also came with
> built in serial and parallel I/O and 3 expansion ports, but I
> digress.

You mean you could use a colour printer with that?

> So why was the Macintosh OS "crippled"? Mainly due to
> commercial reality (there are some other interesting reasons
> relating to the Mac vs Lisa development teams and styles which
> can be read elsewhere). However, it appeared in 1983 that no
> one wanted to pay the price for the features the Lisa OS had to
> offer. They even baulked at the lower cost of the Mac when it
> was introduced with less features the following year.

In other words, it was too far ahead of it's time!

> So my nominations for significant software would be:

> Lisa OS V1 (the original)
> Lisa OS V3.1 (final version which allowed colour and Mac file
> creation!)
> Lisa Office Suite 7/7

Well, it's certainally a handy little computer for it's time!

Cheers.

Jon Jarmon
May 13th, 2003, 09:45 PM
>I agree that the Lisa was an exceptional machine, but it wasn't what I'd >consider significant for several reasons.

>First, it wasn't first. The Apple Lisa "borrowed" heavily from the Xerox >PARC projects that created the GUI concept. Microsoft also dipped into >that punch bowl and introduced the first version of Windows around the >same time as the Lisa came out.

>Erik

Hi Eric.I believe that Microsoft Windows did not actually come out until uh a year and a half after the macintosh was introduced (1984)as Steve Jobs in 1982 contacted Microsoft(and many others)to write applications for the Mac.The first GUI for the I.B.M. PC standard was VISI-ON.It came with a Mouse systems computer mousecheck it out at Nathans toasty technology page at http://www.toastytech.com

The LISA (1983)did bring about the development of the reliable,inexpensive
optical ball computer mouse-the one copied for computers all through the year 2000.
The LISA was an amazing machine
Xerox PARC's mouse was expensive and somewhat unreliable as it used metal feeler sensor brushes.From what I read about it the mouse had to be disassembled weekly in a "clean room".

CP/M User
May 14th, 2003, 04:20 AM
"Jon Jarmon" wrote in message:

>> I agree that the Lisa was an exceptional machine, but it wasn't what
>> I'd consider significant for several reasons.

>> First, it wasn't first. The Apple Lisa "borrowed" heavily from the
>> Xerox PARC projects that created the GUI concept. Microsoft
>> also dipped into that punch bowl and introduced the first
>> version of Windows around the same time as the Lisa came
>> out.

> Hi Eric.I believe that Microsoft Windows did not actually come out
> until uh a year and a half after the macintosh was introduced
> (1984) as Steve Jobs in 1982 contacted Microsoft(and many
> others)to write applications for the Mac.The first GUI for the I.B.M.
> PC standard was VISI-ON.It came with a Mouse systems
> computer mousecheck it out at Nathans toasty technology page
> at http://www.toastytech.com

Hi Jon,

I cannot put a date to when VisiOn was written, but it's in my IBM PC
& XT - The Software Guide from 1983! However Microsoft Windows 1.0
came out in 1985. GEM came out around the same period, but was
more advanced than Windows.

<snip!>

Cheers.

Erik
May 14th, 2003, 05:45 AM
My research indicates that the 1.0 version of MS Windows was introduced in late 1983. It may have shipped later, but it was definately announced before the Mac, but after the Lisa.

Erik

CP/M User
May 14th, 2003, 02:02 PM
"Erik" wrote in message:

Hi Erik/All,

> My research indicates that the 1.0 version of MS Windows was
> introduced in late 1983. It may have shipped later, but it
> was definately announced before the Mac, but after the Lisa.

I cannot be sure if this is correct or not since my
information is only coming from one source. According
to that the earliest date I have for Microsoft
recommending a GUI for DOS was in 1983 (which IBM
declined) & in 1984 Microsoft broke ties with IBM &
started development on it. But as I said I cannot
be certain if those years are persise (the internet
has also been known to be wrong in the past).

Cheers.

Jon Jarmon
May 14th, 2003, 02:18 PM
Microsoft Windows was announced in 1983 but came out in later 1985.
Actually there are 1.00,1.01,1.02,1.03 and 1.04 Versions.Windows 1.X
is quite primative and are seriously flawed.Windows 2.x versions actually work
pretty well and came out as Windows 286 and Windows 386.Apple took Microsoft (and HP for their New Wave)to court over 2.x and later lost the court battle-Xerox sued Apple as and lost their court case .
My brother told me an interesting story about Microsoft(Because he used to work there as an employee).He told me that someone had stole a lot of the Original Macintosh computers that Microsoft developed software applications on for Apple.

CP/M User
May 14th, 2003, 02:31 PM
"Jon Jarmon"

Hi Jon,

> Microsoft Windows was announced in 1983 but came out in later
> 1985.

I'll take your word for it! :-)

> Actually there are 1.00,1.01,1.02,1.03 and 1.04 Versions.
> Windows 1.X is quite primative and are seriously flawed.

From what I've heard, it's just a File Manager! :-)

> Windows 2.x versions actually work pretty well and came out
> as Windows 286 and Windows 386.Apple took Microsoft (and
> HP for their New Wave)to court over 2.x and later lost the court
> battle-Xerox sued Apple as and lost their court case .

Yes, I have Windows 2.x (I was lucky to pick up a big more with
Microsoft Mouse on the cover, the Mouse wasn't there, but the
Original Windows 286 on 5.25" disks were. You get a couple of
nice apps for it too & a game of Reversi! :-) Since then, I've
found some software for it on the Internet & some programming
stuff (a Windows Library for C - Latice C I think).

> My brother told me an interesting story about Microsoft (Because
> he used to work there as an employee).He told me that someone
> had stole a lot of the Original Macintosh computers that
> Microsoft developed software applications on for Apple.

Who, someone at Microsoft?

Cheers.

Jon Jarmon
May 14th, 2003, 02:50 PM
Hi CP/M User.My brother said that the stolen Macs were never recovered
and I guess they never found out who did this, but Bill Gates was mad about what happened.

CP/M User
May 14th, 2003, 10:14 PM
"Jon Jarmon" wrote in message:

> Hi CP/M User.My brother said that the stolen Macs were
> never recovered and I guess they never found out who
> did this, but Bill Gates was mad about what happened.

Ah, okay. Now I see what you mean. The trouble with that
is there are a lot of people out there who don't like
Microsoft. If my memory is correct Bill eventually scrapped
producing software for the Mac. Apple produced Clarisworks
(I think) which is kind of like Microsoft Works (which was on
the Mac too), maybe that has something to do with it?

Cheers.

Jon Jarmon
May 27th, 2003, 12:27 AM
Hi CP/M USER. Here is some more info on Microsoft Windows.
Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates announced Windows at the Helmsley
Palace Hotel in New York City on November 10,1983 and shipped
Windows(Version 1.01) on November 20,1985.

CP/M User
May 27th, 2003, 02:17 AM
"Jon Jarmon" wrote in message:

> Hi CP/M USER. Here is some more
> info on Microsoft Windows. Microsoft
> Chairman Bill Gates announced
> Windows at the Helmsley Palace Hotel
> in New York City on November
> 10,1983 and shipped Windows
> (Version 1.01) on November 20,1985.

Good, Dates are good. Was Windows 1.01
the first version? I would have thought
that Windows 1.0 came out first. Or
perhaps version 1.0 wasn't released due
to bugs.

Dates are not the great things, when it
comes to Historical Internet sites or Books
they get a little muddled about. And then
one site may have the date they began
write something or when it was completed.

Cheers.

Jon Jarmon
May 27th, 2003, 02:26 AM
Hello again CP/M user. Windows 1.01 was the first released version on Nov 20th.
Windows 1.00 was the pre-release prototype.I have all 5 versions including 1.02,1.03 and 1.04.
Recently I've obtained the biggest Microsoft flop-Microsoft Bob made by
Melinda Gates(Bill's wife).The same rover dog in Bob is in Windows XP.
Maybe it's a insider joke.Microsoft Bob was pulled off the store shelves about a week later after its failed introduction.

CP/M User
May 27th, 2003, 02:37 AM
"Jon Jarmon" wrote in message:

Hello again Jon,

> Hello again CP/M user. Windows 1.01 was the first released
> version on Nov 20th.
> Windows 1.00 was the pre-release prototype.I have all 5
> versions including 1.02,1.03 and 1.04.

Must be some feat! :-) (Win 1.00 would have been a fluke).

> Recently I've obtained the biggest Microsoft flop-Microsoft
> Bob made by Melinda Gates(Bill's wife).The same rover dog
> in Bob is in Windows XP.

Is that like a toy Dog or a Software Program of a Dog.

> Maybe it's a insider joke.Microsoft Bob was pulled off the
> store shelves about a week later after its failed
> introduction.

Gee, they don't give it much of a chance! :-)

Cheers.

David Buttery
June 4th, 2003, 05:42 AM
Add your own below if you think the poll is lacking! :)

Three more nominees I can think of, in my blatantly biased opinion:

BBC BASIC: because a whole generation of Brits learnt to program in it, thanks to Beebs being all-pervasive in schools. Atually, those of us who grew up in the early-mid 1980s will probably go down in history as the only generation to be taught programming as a matter of course from early middle school age. Okay, so not many people had Beebs at home (cos they cost a bomb), but everyone used them.

LocoScript, the word processor that came with the Amstrad PCW machines. For several years in the mid-late 1980s, you couldn't go anywhere without seeing notices, newsletters, even complete books in Locoscript's distinctive "flattened o" typeface. It completely revolutionised home publishing in Britain.

And finally there's Elite. Enough said! :D

CP/M User
June 4th, 2003, 02:35 PM
"David Buttery" wrote in message:

>> Add your own below if you think the poll is lacking! :)

> Three more nominees I can think of, in
> my blatantly biased opinion:

> 'BBC BASIC': because a whole generation
> of Brits learnt to program in it, thanks to
> Beebs being all-pervasive in schools.
> Actually, those of us who grew up in the
> early-mid 1980s will probably go down in
> history as the only generation to be taught
> programming as a matter of course from
> early middle school age. Okay, so not many
> people had Beebs at home (cos they cost a
> bomb), but everyone used them.

The only thing which puzzles me about the
BBC computers is, what happened to them.

In 1984 my family brought an Amstrad CPC464
with Green Screen & a few games. Sadily I lost
touch with the Amstrad community for 5 years.
In 1989 after having typed in some type-ins &
being old enough to type-in some big programs
& my older brother buying an Amstrad Action
magazine for this type-in, I decided it's time to
start collecting & using my machine. At that
stage the BBC seemed to have vanashed. In the
magazine itself the commercial games would
list which computers it was available for. The
C64, Spectrum computer & Amstrad seemed to
be the only 3 main 8bit machines for the
commercial games.

> 'LocoScript', the word processor that came with
> the Amstrad PCW machines. For several years
> in the mid-late 1980s, you couldn't go anywhere
> without seeing notices, newsletters, even
> complete books in Locoscript's distinctive
> "flattened o" typeface. It completely
> revolutionised home publishing in Britain.

I don't know too much about LocoScript, but I'm
imagining that it help make the Amstrad PCW
become a popular business machine in UK &
Europe.

> And finally there's 'Elite'. Enough said! :D

Amstrad Action gave away Elite with issue 100
on their covertape. I tried playing it for 5
minutes, until I thought I would have some fun
laserning the space station (That I came out
from). This in turn brought out some nice looking
ships for me to zap! :-) This was great fun. The
only trick was to not zap the station too many times
or it's game over! You could also flee to another
system to play hide & seek with those ships! :-)

Cheers.

Terry Yager
June 4th, 2003, 03:17 PM
CP/M User:

You might be interested in my auction listed on the "auctions" page of this msg board. It runs an early version of Windows, with an early MicroSoft mouse.

--T

Terry Yager
June 4th, 2003, 03:28 PM
My _Bowker's 1985 Complete sourcebook of Personal Computing_ does not even mention the word "Windows" anywhere in it's 1050 pages. This sourcebook gives a snapshot of the personal computing world as of 1984 or so. It is my Bible for info on some vintage hard-and-software up until that time.

--T

Terry Yager
June 4th, 2003, 03:31 PM
If you want to know anything about anything up to 1985, just ask, I'll look it up.

--T

Jon Jarmon
June 4th, 2003, 07:46 PM
Hi David Buttery and CP/M user I really like the game Frontier.It's the later version of Elite and downloadable from Home of the Underdogs.It has really awesome music.If you like Elite you will LOVE Frontier.
At Nathans toasty technology page he has
the obscure VISI-ON GUI-the first one for I.B.M. compatables that predates Microsofts.However It apparently has some nasty copy protection scheme as was explained by Nathan on his web page.
I still downloaded it anyway.

Jon Jarmon
June 4th, 2003, 08:10 PM
Hi Terry Yager. Douglas Englebart first invented Windows.Englebart had a GUI,networked,hypertext and computer mouse demonstration at the fall 1968 Joint computer conference in San Fransisco's civic center(There is a link to it at Nathans toasty technology page WITH VIEWABLE VIDEO)
Englebart develop these ideas at the Augmentation Research Center of the Stanford Research Institute under the auspices of ARPA.

The first time that I heard of Windows was in a Sept 1977 Scientific American article about Xerox Parc's amazing developments with the ALTO workstation.I still have the magazine!

The Apple Macintosh tour disk(Jan 24,1984) discusses Windows with the accompaning Macintosh Audio tape.

CP/M User
June 5th, 2003, 12:46 AM
"Terry Yager" wrote in message:

Hi Terry,

> You might be interested in my auction listed
> on the "auctions" page of this msg board.
> It runs an early version of Windows, with an
> early MicroSoft mouse.

Yes, the it's interesting. I don't know too much
about the Zeniths (or that one in particular),
I know someone who has a earlier based Zenith
which is a combination of 8088 & Z80 support.

I'm guessing that the Zenith 150 does provide
support as an IBM compatable. The early
Microsoft Flight Simulator would certainally
confirm this! :-)

Cheers.

Terry Yager
June 5th, 2003, 06:13 PM
CP.M User said:

I know someone who has a earlier based Zenith
which is a combination of 8088 & Z80 support.

That would be the Z-100, an earlier not-quite-compatible version in the same family, along with the Z-148, another ibm compatible from Zenith.

I'm guessing that the Zenith 150 does provide
support as an IBM compatable. The early
Microsoft Flight Simulator would certainally
confirm this! :-)

I too, used to uae FligfgtSim to test compatibility of ibm clones. I cant rembr if it runs it or if i ever even tried it.

--T

CP/M User
June 5th, 2003, 07:58 PM
"Terry Yager" wrote in message:

>> I know someone who has a earlier based Zenith
>> which is a combination of 8088 & Z80 support.

Actually, I was incorrect there. The Zeniths used a
8085 processor for the 8bit side!

> That would be the Z-100, an earlier not-quite-
> compatible version in the same family, along with
> the Z-148, another ibm compatible from Zenith.

Yes, the book I have states there were 5 machines
in the Zenith Z100 Series (there might of been more
made after the book was published). In a matter of
speaking my book talks about the Z110 & Z120.
Strangely enough, it doesn't talk about the other 3.

>> I'm guessing that the Zenith 150 does provide
>> support as an IBM compatable. The early
>> Microsoft Flight Simulator would certainally
>> confirm this! :-)

> I too, used to use FlightSim to test compatibility
> of ibm clones. I cant remember if it runs it or
> if i ever even tried it.

Well I actually haven't used it, I've just heard in
a matter of words that it was a good program to
test the IBM compatability on & that it could have
been the first program available for people who
wished to do tests on their machines.

Cheers.

Terry Yager
June 6th, 2003, 05:20 AM
Wow! 5 different machines? I've never seen or even heard of the Z-110 or 120. Can you tell me more about them?

--T

CP/M User
June 7th, 2003, 03:28 PM
"Terry Yager" wrote in message:

> Wow! 5 different machines? I've never seen or
> even heard of the Z-110 or 120. Can you tell me
> more about them?

Yes, well. The Z-120 & the Z-110 are not that far
different from one another. The only difference
between them was the Z-120 had a mono screen
& the Z-110 lacked a monitor. The idea behind
that was if you wanted a colour monitor then you'd
go for the Z-110. Apart from that they were the
same machine.

Cheers.

Terry Yager
June 7th, 2003, 04:28 PM
Interesting...
I have seen two different styles of Z-100. One has a built-in monitor and the other does not. Prolly the same idea.

--T

CP/M User
June 7th, 2003, 06:55 PM
"Terry Yager" wrote in message:

> Interesting...
> I have seen two different styles of Z-100.
> One has a built-in monitor and the other
> does not. Prolly the same idea.

Yes, in a matter of speaking, I think so.

The Amstrad CPC-464 is kind of like that,
except the name doesn't change. The first
2 had no disc* drive, but either a Green
Screen or Colour Screen were available.
You also had the built in tape deck (for
saving & loading your programs).

The other option, which had the built-in
tape deck & external disc* drive was also
a pick of which monitor you also wanted.
Either way you got a monitor. For Green
Screen owners who wanted Colour later
on, you were able to get a modulator
(so you could use it with your telly), it
wasn't as good as having the colour
monitor though.

Naturally when the Amstrad CPC-664
came out, it was basically the same
as the CPC-464 except the BASIC was
updated (which had extra commands)
& the built-in disc* drive.

* The Amstrad manufacturers spelt
their 'disc' drives this way, even
though just about everyone calls thm
'disk' drives! :-) Apart from the IBM
compatables which Amstrad
manufactured most of their other
machines used 3" discs (which are
just as tought as 3.5" inch disks).

Cheers.

Terry Yager
June 8th, 2003, 01:31 PM
I never knew Amstrad made so many different machines. About the only one we ever see over here on this side of the pond is the PCW.

Terry Yager
June 8th, 2003, 01:33 PM
I never knew Amstrad made so many different machines. About the only one we ever see over here on this side of the pond is the PCW.

CP/M User
June 8th, 2003, 02:32 PM
"Terry Yager" wrote in message:

> I never knew Amstrad made so many
> different machines. About the only
> one we ever see over here on this
> side of the pond is the PCW.

Well, the earlier CPC machines shared
compatability with one another.
Admittibly, the extra features of BASIC
1.1 had some problems on BASIC 1.0
(which the 464 used). The later CPC
Plus machines had support for
cartridge, extra colours & a few other
things (unfortunately they never
released them here in Australia).

The CPC6128 (the later of early CPC
machines) has some support for some
PCW applications under CP/M. The
PCW used the same disk drives as the
CPC computers which had them.

Cheers.