3 ms·

> In the eyes of most, the next major step from the Macintosh was Microsoft Windows. No, that would be Atari STs GEM OS, or the Amiga’s AmigaOS. Or the Acorn E

> In the eyes of most, the next major step from the Macintosh was Microsoft Windows. No, that would be Atari STs GEM OS, or the Amiga’s AmigaOS. Or the Acorn Electron. Windows was laughing joke amongst non-PC users for the entirety of the 80s and the first half of the 90s. Even Tandy produced a better frontend to DOS than the early versions of Windows.

kabdib 5y ago
It didn't help that graphics on the PC were absolutely terrible. IBM's monochrome monitor was beautiful, but text only. Their color graphics card had one of the worst interfaces you could imagine short of setting pixels one-by-one over, say, a serial port. The PC world would have been a far more interesting scene if IBM had consulted with or purchased technology from someone like Atari or Commodore. Don't get me started on audio. IBM really blew it. Arguably, we're lucky they did, given the market opportunities that they created as a result.
opheliate 5y ago
At the end of that paragraph: > It was more that early releases of Windows failed because they were inferior to other DOS GUIs. I think the author agrees with you, they’re just noting that this is how many people today (including myself, prior to having read the article) perceive the evolution of GUIs.
- laumars 5y ago
  Acorn, Atari and Amiga were not DOS machines. There was a lot of variety of operating systems and computer hardware back in the 80s. It wasn’t until the mid 90s when the industry “standardised” (in a de facto sense of the term) on IBM-compatible machines. Before then most didn’t even run Intel CPUs let alone DOS.
  - jcrawfordor 5y ago
    I made a practical choice to focus on the IBM PC compatible GUIs because I am most familiar with them and I think they are some of the most poorly known due to an assumption that Windows was always the dominant option. And yes, I think it's fair to say that Windows 1/2 failed due to its lackluster comparison to other DOS options---DOS had significant market share that should have made Windows a top competitor, but it was not, as DOS users were choosing other options. That said, you are absolutely correct that there were multiple competing microcomputer platforms at the time and most of them had GUIs on offer.
boygobbo 5y ago
Did you mean the Acorn Archimedes? (The Acorn Electron was a cut-down version of the 8-bit BBC Model B. The Archimedes was the first ARM computer (32-bit RISC CPU, full colour WIMP interface, anti-aliased fonts, etc.).
- laumars 5y ago
  Ahh yes. Good spot. Thank you for the correction

kabdib 5y ago

It didn't help that graphics on the PC were absolutely terrible. IBM's monochrome monitor was beautiful, but text only. Their color graphics card had one of the worst interfaces you could imagine short of setting pixels one-by-one over, say, a serial port. The PC world would have been a far more interesting scene if IBM had consulted with or purchased technology from someone like Atari or Commodore. Don't get me started on audio. IBM really blew it. Arguably, we're lucky they did, given the market opportunities that they created as a result.

opheliate 5y ago

At the end of that paragraph: > It was more that early releases of Windows failed because they were inferior to other DOS GUIs. I think the author agrees with you, they’re just noting that this is how many people today (including myself, prior to having read the article) perceive the evolution of GUIs.

laumars 5y ago
Acorn, Atari and Amiga were not DOS machines. There was a lot of variety of operating systems and computer hardware back in the 80s. It wasn’t until the mid 90s when the industry “standardised” (in a de facto sense of the term) on IBM-compatible machines. Before then most didn’t even run Intel CPUs let alone DOS.
- jcrawfordor 5y ago
  I made a practical choice to focus on the IBM PC compatible GUIs because I am most familiar with them and I think they are some of the most poorly known due to an assumption that Windows was always the dominant option. And yes, I think it's fair to say that Windows 1/2 failed due to its lackluster comparison to other DOS options---DOS had significant market share that should have made Windows a top competitor, but it was not, as DOS users were choosing other options. That said, you are absolutely correct that there were multiple competing microcomputer platforms at the time and most of them had GUIs on offer.

boygobbo 5y ago

Did you mean the Acorn Archimedes? (The Acorn Electron was a cut-down version of the 8-bit BBC Model B. The Archimedes was the first ARM computer (32-bit RISC CPU, full colour WIMP interface, anti-aliased fonts, etc.).

laumars 5y ago
Ahh yes. Good spot. Thank you for the correction